Skip to main content

Full text of "Adisesa Paramarthasara"

See other formats












E. J. BRILL— LEIDEN— 1980 






E. J. BRILL — LEIDEN — 1980 


Abbreviations ix 

Introduction 1 

Text and Translation 15 

on Jating pages 

Notes 39 

Bibliography 80 

1 ndcx of Verses 83 


in (he order of ihc Sanskrit Nagari scrip! 

AGM Acyuta-Grantha-Mala (Varanasi) 

TiaU Isa-Upanisad 

US Upadcia-Sahaisri, ed. H. R. Bhagavat, Minor Wcrki of An" 

Sankaratarya, PoOBa Oriental Series, No. 8 (1925; reprint: 1952); tr 
P Haiker (German), Bonn: Rohrschcid. 1949 (prose pan) 

RS Rgvcda*Saihhita 

AiU Ailareya-Upanisad 

KafhU Ka|ha-Upanisad 

GK GaudapadiyaKarikas; cf Vetter, 1978 

ChU Chundogyu-L'pnnisad 

TA Taittiriya-Aranyaka 

TU Taittiriya-Upanisad 

PTS PSli Text Soticiy (London) 

PS I'.n ;iii>,ii 1 1. .<•..! 1,1 

BU Brhad-Aranyaka-Upanijad 

K( A Bodhicaryavatara, by Santideva; ed. Vidhushekhara Bh.iitaihary.i, 

Bibl Indira. 280/1580. Calcutta, 1960; tr. L. dc La Valine Pottudn, 

Inl'odutUon a la pratique, du fulurs Howldhm. Pans: Bloud, 1907 
BS Brahma- Sutras, by Badarayapa; numcmui editions; best tr,: 

Thibaui. 1904. with following 
BSBh Bhasya (commentary) on preceding, by Samkara 

BhG Bhagavad-Gita 

Mali Mandukya-Upanisad; cf. Vetier, 1978 

MuU Mundaka-Upanisad 

MDhS Manava Dharma Sastra ("Laws of Manu") 
MNU Mah.i-Narayaiia Upaniwd; ed, a tr. J. Varenne. Paris, I960 

MBh Maha-Bharata; best cd.: oil. ed. by V. S. Sukihankar, S. K. 

Belvalkar. P L. Vajdya, Poona, 1933-66, 19 vols, in 22 parts 
MMK Mula-Madhyamaka-Karikas, by Nagarjuna; cd. La Vallec Poussin, 

with Prasannapada. coram, by Gandrakim, Bibl Buddhica, IV, 

J903-13; reprint: Osnabrikk, 1970 
MSA Kiahayana-Sutra-Alamkara, by Maitreyanalha, cd. a tr. S. Levi, 

Bibl. de I'Eeole des Hautcs Etudes, Sciences Hist, et Philol., 159, 

190. Paris, 1907-11; cf. Frauwallncr, 1969, 296 ff. 
YD Yukti-Dipika, anonymous comm. on Sariikhya-Karikas; ed, 

Pulinbehari Chakravarri, Calcutta Sanskrit Series, XXIII. 1928 
R- Raghavananda, commentator on PS by Adisesa, see Introduction, 



RGV Raina-Gotra-Vibhaga. srr Takasaki, 1966. and Rucgg. 1%9 

$B Saiapatha-Brahnwna, ed A. Wcbcr, Berlin. 1852-59 (rcpr.: Delhi. 

1964); ir. J, Eggcling, S.B.E., 5 vols. 
SvU Svetaivaiara-Upanisad 

SS SunkfCpa -Sirirakii. I>y Sarvajnatman; sec VcUrr, 1972 


A uthorship 

The present book, entitled Paramarlhasara {"Essence of 
Supreme Truth") according to its verses 9 and 87, consists of 85 
Aryd verses, which are preceded by two Tn'ffubh verses. It was 
written by a certain Adiscsa (called Sesa by verse 87), who 
probably lived in the early sixth century A.D. That the book 
was written by ( a single person is made likely by the use of the 
somewhat rare Aiya metre. This metre is based on groups (jgana) 
as well as morae (mdlrd), which prove that it was meant to be 
sung. Each verse consists of two hemistyches, each hemistych, of 
two "feet" *(pdda). The first pada consists of three groups of four 
morae; the second, of four and a half groups of four morac, with 
the sixth group of the first hemistych consisting of cither four 
short syllables, or two short syllables enclosing a single long one 
(length always being determined by either quality or position). 
The third pada consists of the same configuration as the first; and 
the fourth, of three and a half groups of four morae plus a single 
short syllable which forms the sixth "group" of the second 
hemistych. The metre indirectly gives us a terminus a quo for this 
book; in verse 31 , which contains a traditional reference to MaU 
1.3, Adisesa uses the word vtsoa where the Upanisad uses 
vaihanara. The metre would have made the use of oaihanara 
possible, but the author chose ois'va instead, thereby forcing 
himself to add a word of three morae; this is the awkward and 
unnecessary eva. Why did he do so? The answer is that 
Gaudapada, in his Kdrikds on the MaU (GK. 1.1 IT.), used the 
word visva rather than oaxioanaia. The obvious conclusion is that 
Adisesa copied from Gaudapada. 

As for the terminus ad quern, we have the evidence from YD 
(p. 25, 1. 8, in the edition used by Frauwallner), which quotes 


PS 83 ad the commentary on Samkhya-Kanka 2. According to 
Frauwallner (1953, p. 287), the YD existed in the year 550 A.D. 
Adiscsa must therefore have written his PS some time before the 
latter dale. (Cf. Ruping, 1977, p. 2.) 

A commentary on this work has been written by a certain 
Raghavananda, whose date Potter (1970) does not give, but who 
may not have lived before the sixteenth century. The main in- 
terest lies in the many quotations from U pan i saris and the BhG, 
which he uses to clarify points of philosophical interest en- 
countered in reading PS, (The abbreviations 1 use to indicate 
those works refer to the list of abbreviations on p. ix vf this 

Adiscsa \s PS has twice been edited so far, together with R.'s 
Vivarana, the first time as Volume 12 of the "Trivandrum San- 
skrit Series" in 1911, by T. Ganapaii Sastri, the second time as 
Volume 9 in the "Acyuta-Grantha-Mala" (Varanasi) in 1932, 
by Surya-Narayana Sukla. It is the latter which has served as 
base for the present text and translation. It presents a very fair 
text, with only a few minor mistakes; but I have generally 
(though not always) substituted anusvdra nasals in front of stops 
for the lattcr's corresponding nasals, in accordance with correct 
phonetic practice. 


The first three verses set the scene for the whole work, which 

deals with three main themes: 

(1) The "Self or "Soul" (dtman) differs from the world, 
from the latter's primordial cause, viz., Matter (prakrlt), 

(2) the world is an illusion, a product of magic (maya), resem- 
bles a mirage (mrgatrsnikd); 


(3) the "Self" (atman) = the World Principle (brahman) - 
God (Visnu). 

In verse 3, a student enters on the scene, and addresses a guru, 
who turns out to be the author of the PS. He asks him who is the 
being which forms the subject of transmigration (samsara), and 
why that being transmigrates, and finally, how that being may be 
delivered from transmigration. Since verse 3 already introduces 
a speaker, the actual introduction to the book may be regarded 
as limited to verses 1-2. And, indeed, they are in a metre which 
differs from that of the remainder of the book, viz., Tristubh 
as against Ana. (See above.) 

Verse 1 enumerates the qualities of God: transcendence, 
singularity, and immanence. This raises some philosophical 
problems which arc of the utmost relevance, and which are met 
with in similar fashion in Western and Islamic philosophy. The 
PS treats them briefly, though not without consistency. The 
pivotal issue is that, if God is only transcendent, man is nothing 
(as in the iari^at of Islam); but if He is immanent, man's 
phenomenal existence becomes deified and, consequently, il- 
lusory. The latter solution has. with greater or lesser consistency, 
been adopted by both Hindus and Buddhists, so that they may 
also accept idolatry (as manifestation of God - esse in mtibas), 
which must be anathema to Muslims. Verse 2 of our text 
presents the logical corollary: if God is immanent in the world, 
the whole world is also immersed in Him = the Self; so that it is 
utterly amazing that one should not realize this fact; so that this 
lack of insight must be due to ignorance (avidya), i.e., illusion 

God = The Self transcends the world of plurality (dvaita) - the 
psycho-physical complex, although He is immanent within it 
through his = the soul's own error (bhrdntx) = illusion or magic 


[maya) - "play" (krida). (See verses 30 ff.) God's transcendence 
is particularly important in respect of Matter (prakrti), which is 
primarily a concept taken from the ancient Samkhya doctrine. 
For Matter is, according to the latter, the pntnum mobile, under 
impulse from its "qualities'* (jpma), viz., "Goodness" (saliva), 
"Passion" (rajas), and "Darkness" (tamos), each of which acts on 
creation in its specific way. So, if (he text of PS puts God - the 
Supreme Soul (paramdJman) over and above Mailer, this means 
that it interprets a basic doctrine of the Samkhya school in a sense 
consistent with Advaita ("non-plural") Vcdanta. I have quoted 
R.'s commentary ad locum in note 2, but it is difficult to decide 
whether his interpretation is correct. Although PS must have 
only one author for reasons already stated, there arc in it traces 
of both Samkhya and Vedanta, the latter in a shape we might 
determine as Visistddvatla, which postulates that the world is 
both different and non-different from God - Brahman - Alman, 
i.e., has relative reality. (Cf. note 160 below.) 

The student, by the wording of his request in verse 7, 
demonstrates his adherence to dualism, which is typical of 
Samkhya. The other verses in which he speaks to his guru cannot 
be attributed to any doctrine in particular; his motive in coining 
to the guru may have provided Samkaracarya with a model for 
the student seeking truth and deliverance in the prose text 
(Gadyaprabandha) of the US. Verse 70 returns to the theme by 
stating, in effect, that the student's question has been answered. 
It is not without inner logic that the verses from 7! onward no 
longer deal with philosophical problems proper, but expostulate 
on the status of him who knows Supreme Truth or Reality 
(paramdrtha), and has thereby gained deliverance from trans- 
migration. For the text has up to that point stressed the fact 
that bondage to transmigration does not affect ihe soul (which is 
eternally free), but only the psycho-physical complex; conse- 


quently, because the soul is the only ens reale, bondage is virtual, 
and due to imputing a "soul nature" to that which is unspiritual. 
As a further corollary, deliverance has no specific "place," no 
"heaven," for it is merely due to the attainment of insight. 
(See verse 73.) Compare with this notion the conception 
of deliverance according to the Buddhist Vijnanavadin 
Maitreyanatha (MSA 6,2, quoted in Frauwallner's masterly 
anthology: 1969. p. 313): "The belief in an Ego docs not itself 
have the character of the Ego, nor docs the world of suffering, be- 
cause it is of a different nature. There is. however, nothing beside 
these two. Therefore, that belief is an error. Consequently, 
deliverance is the mere disappearance of that error." That was 
also the subject of the student's question in PS 5, and its treat- 
ment throughout the book shows thai its author did not conceive 
of metaphysics outside the scope of soteriology. 

If bondage to transmigration, and consequently to 
phenomenal existence, is unreal, the world itself cannot be real in 
a metaphysical sense. For "to be" is the highest, most abstract 
metaphysical notion, and therefore admits of no differentiation. 
Hence, if the soul both is and u different from matter (and conse- 
qucnUy also from matter's creation, i.e., the world), the latter 
cannot be. Therefore, although it should be possible for a Yogin, 
attached to the dualistic metaphysics of Samkhya, to reach 
deliverance from transmigration by realizing, in practice, that 
the soul is different from matter, a logically consistent ontology 
will nevertheless have to face the following alternative: either 
Soul and Matter both are, hence are inseparable; or the Soul 
alone is, Matter is not ("does not be"), hence diey are separate ab 
initio. Most Western metaphysics since Aristotle has adopted the 
former possibility, thus gaining essentiality within existentiality 
for individual man, but losing final deliverance, and consequent- 
ly subverting "essentiality within existentiality" (Kant) into 


"existentiality within essentiality" (Hegel and Marx). (See 
Przywara, 1962.) Most Indian philosophical schools, on the 
other hand, have come to adopt the latter possibility (most 
notably Buddhism and Advaita-Vedanta), thus gaining final 
deliverance, but losing (or, rather, not making thematic) the in- 
dividual's essentiality (which turns into mere existentiality, most 
radically in Buddhism, which may well appeal to modern man in 
the Western world for exactly this reason). 

The foregoing implies that Advaita-Vedanta, whether it is 
called "monastic" or not (which is a dubious qualification for 
any Indian school of thought), is a development from Samkhya 
in a crucial aspect, viz., ontology. It is not surprising, therefore, 
to find the terminology of Samkhya Satkaiyavada (according to 
which every phenomenon qua effect, karya, is insofar as it is iden- 
tical with matter qua cause, korana) recurring in early Advaita- 
Vedanta. Here, it is used to prove that every phenomenon is 
unreal qua ens indmiduate, but real qua ens commune, i.e., Brahman 
- Atman - God ( - esse el causa). PS gives many examples of this 
doctrine, which lead at first sight to an impression of confusion 
between "monistic"" Vedanta and "dualistic" Samkhya notions 
(e.g., verses 70, 75, 83). However, even though it is probable 
that notions from several quarters have found their way into this 
text, their blending is far from arbitrary, but follows a consistent 
pattern. This pattern is formed by the notion that the world is a 
ffifljioofGod = Brahman - the eternally free and unstained Soul. 

Maya means two things: on the one hand, the illusion accord- 
ing to which that which is unreal (viz., the world, the psyche, 
etc.) is real; in other words, mere ignorance (avidya). On the 
other hand, it means the illusion which, like that created by the 
magician, is unreal qua illusion, yet real qua underlying reality 
(i.e.. Brahman, etc. = the ens commune); so that mayd may be 
called "consisting of the gunas" in verse 45, i.e., identical 


with prakrii (The same applies to auidya in 49.) However, those 
two meanings (which may be called "epistemological" or 
"gnoseological" on the one hand, and "ontological" on the 
other) are just two semantemes of one underlying idea, which is 
the exclusive reality of the ens commune (i.e., excluding both the 
latter's cxistentiaiity and the world's essentiality), as PS 57, 58, 
74 demonstrate. 

This idea should remind us of the Buddhist notions about 
the illusory character of the world, especially those of the 
Vijrianavadins and the school of the Ratnagotravibhaga (which 
seems to stand in a Vijnanavada tradition). Thus, I have quoted 
a RGV verse in explanation of PS 16, while the Self's 
characterization as buddka, etc., in PS 25 seems influenced by the 
fourth chapter of GK, which dates from Gaudapada's Buddhist 
period. (Sec Vetter, 1978.) I may also refer to Samdhinir- 
mocanasuira 6.8, which compares the "Perfect Quality of the 
Factors- of- Existence" {dharmanam parinispanna-laksanatn) to a 
clear crystal, which is erroneously held for something else if 
brought into contact with that thing. (See Frauwallner, 1969, p. 
286.) Chronologically, too, it is quite likely that both Gauclapada 
and AiliM-N.i, as early Advaita-Vedantins, were strongly influ- 
enced by Buddhism. The Advaita-Vedanta which Adisesa teaches 
is not absolutist, but relativistic, hence may be called Vis'iftddvoita 
or Bhedabkedddvaita, i.e., it teaches that every ens individuate is 
both identical with {qua ens), and different from (qua illusion), 
the ens commune, which is God = Brahman » Alman. (On probable 
Buddhist influence, sec also note 45.) 

That is also implied by another factor, viz., the emphasis we 
find in PS on bhaktt, i.e., "participating devotion toward, and 
identification with, God," Originating from the BhG, the notion 
of bhakli presupposes the relative essentiality of the devotee, not 
only as a kind of "pia Jraus" (in order to induce him to lake 


religious devotion seriously), but also because there would be 
no participation possible between an ens participant and an ens 
partuipandum without the precondition of each being an ens, and 
consequently the ens commune. (Cf. n. 102.) U is this admission 
of essentiality within existentiality, crucial to mysticism 
everywhere, which brought Thomas Aquinas on the verge of 
heresy, significantly because he was influenced in his ontology by 
Averroes, who stood himself in the tradition of the Islamic Si'a 
ta'wil, i.e., the esoteric exegesis of God's word. (See Corbin, 
1964, pp. 334 ff.) Although both Averroes and Saint Thomas 
went beyond the Neo-Platonist and Avicennean dictum that "Ex 
Una non/it nist Unum," and thereby became the precursors of 
modern Western philosophy {which, in a sense, culminated in 
the "political" metaphysics of Kant and Hegel), their on- 
tological base was precisely in that essentially "oriental" {maira- 
qia) dictum. The history of §i J a metaphysics, especially of 
Sufism, tries to mediate between "oriental" csscntialism and 
"occidental" existentialism. Consequently, the contrast between 
Indian and Western metaphysics lies in the fact that the former 
identifies existence with essence, and the latter, essence with 
existence. The former thereby gains deliverance, the latter, 
physical dominance over the world. 

One of the structural elements of Vcdantist philosophy, and 
one which is traditionally held to set it apart from other Indian 
schools of thought (particularly Buddhism), is that is claims as its 
authority the so-called "Vedanta tradition" {Vedantasaslm, PS 
87), i.e., the doctrinal mass of the Upamsads. This raises a prob- 
lem: since the latter embody spoken words, they belong to the 
world of illusion; hence, how can they teach deliverance? (Com- 
pare the question of whether the Qardn was created or not in early 
Islam.) The answer which R. gives ad PS 22 (cf. n. 76) is that the 
Upanisads put an end to illusion in the same manner as a 


frightening lion which one sees in his dream does to this dream, 
or as a girl one sees in his dream constitutes a good omen for the 
,4 rites of gratification."' (No women were allowed to carry out 
any ritual by themselves!) Nevertheless, that argument is not (he 
exclusive prerogative of Brahmanic orthodoxy, as MSA 6.6-10 
show: the Bodhisattva attains liberating insight by reflecting on 
the texts of the Buddhist doctrine, but after he has gained com- 
plete clarity about them, he recognizes the entire tradition as 
mere imagination. (See Frauwallncr, 1969, pp. 314-5; cp. n. 102 

Generally, such a conception characterizes the tradition in 
which it stands (regardless of its formal aspects) as an essentially 
Iheosophkai one. For it manifests the infinitum puttnlia. which by 
itself cannot bui become an infinitum actu (as we saw) in respect of 
a philosophical diacrisis, as the ens commune, in respect of a religious 
diacrisis (to use the formula of Dionysius Areopagita), which 
makes its object fit for philosophical discourse by this very 
csscntiahsm of existence. That is, in the last analysis, why Indian 
philosophy and religion both culminate in a single theosophy. At 
the same time, my translation of Indian concepts into the 
language of the Scholastics should have demonstrated beyond all 
doubt the difference between Indian religions, on the one hand, 
and monotheism (Jewish, Christian, Muslim), on the other: 
whereas the former equate religious with philosophical discourse, 
the latter can have no "ear" for any other than God's discourse, 
by which He created the universe. 

The famous Kaimirian Saiva philosopher Abhinavagupra, who 
flourished around 1010 A.D. (according to Potter, 1970), wrote 
another Pammarthasara, which is in part nothing but a rewrite of 
Adisesa's text. It has been edited (virtually as a copy of J. C. 
Chatterji's edition in "Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies," 
Volume 7, 1916, where it was accompanied by Yogaraja's com- 


mentary) by Liliane Silburn in 1957, as Fascicule 5 of the 
"Publications de l'Institut de Civilisation Indtennc" (Paris). Ac- 
cording to Miss Silburn, the Adhdrakdrikas (i.e.. the verses which 
form the Paramarthasara by Adi&sa, who is called "Adhdra," i.e., 
"Support [of the words]," not only in our present PS, but also in 
Abhinavagupta's, where he, rather than the latter, is by implica- 
tion identified as its author) "sont une ceuvre de I'ecole 
Samkhya." I think I have sufficiently demonstrated in the notes 
on my translation that, despite important Samkhya elements 
(such as the doctrine about evolution from Primordial Matter by 
way of the "World Egg" in verse 10, and the "Inner Organs," 
"Pure Entities," "Sense Faculties," and "Great Elements" in 
verse 20, the implicit dualism of verse 70, etc.), the work as a 
whole belongs to a tradition of Vedanta, and one we may call 
Rheda bhtdadvaila. 

As for the information contained in those notes, the reader 
should never forget that, however interesting factual knowledge 
is, his reading should further his understanding about himself, 
his place in the world, and the manner in which he may find rest 
from the world's business- Knowledge should never be sought for 
its own sake, but always in order to liberate onsclf from the stress 
which results from attachment to the world. In this spirit, R. 
understands that, through the PS, "an intended action is thereby 
acknowledged, inasmuch as an inquiry into the truth about the 
Primordial Soul (puruja) and Primordial Matter (prakrti) is here 
undertaken." (Commentary on verse 2, probably influenced by 
BS 111: athdto brahmajijnasa. "Thence, the investigation into 
Brahman.") It is not without its charm to quote from R.'s com- 
mentary on the final verse the reasons which he finds to recom- 
mend this work for careful study: "This book should be studied 
by those who investigate into the truth for the following reasons: 
(1) it is based on the main instrument of knowledge [viz., the 


Upanisad sentences; cf. n. 276 ad PS 87]; (2) it has been 
authored by the Lord, Ananta, who is permanently released [cf. 
n. 25«fcf 8, 277 at/ 87]; (3) it is an object of much veneration; (4) it 
has as its result "Separation" [of the soul from matter; cf. n. 234 
ad 70, 262 ad 81]; (5) it has a pleasing style; (6) it is a book of 
moderate size." 


Apart from some few mistakes and misprints, the text which Sri 
Surya-Narayana Sukla has presented us with is very satisfactory 
indeed. Less so, however, is the manner in which the many 
quotations from Vedic and Epic texts arc assigned to their 
rightful loci in the commentary by Raghavananda, Here, I have 
frit obliged to check almost all of them in view of both the interest 
they hold generally and the importance they have for a correct 
understanding of the way this commentator understood the PS, 
They turned out to have been often wrongly attributed, either to 
a different place in the text quoted, or to an altogether difTcrcnt 
text; this was especially the case with Rigvcdic verses. So we are 
once again confirmed in our suspicions about Indian philological 
skills: while the Indian Pandits have, quite often, an amazing 
memory and quote whole passages, or at least "indicative" por- 
tions of such passages, from memory, they are also often inac- 
curate, particularly as regards titles and numbers. 

1 have refrained from giving a concordance between those 
verses in Adisesa's PS which were more or less freely copied by 
Abhinavagupta some five centuries later, because that work has 
already been undertaken by Miss Silburn in the notes on her 
translation of Abhinava's work. 

I want to ihank Dr. Tilmann Vetter, Professor of Indian 
Philosophy, Buddhism, and Tibetan at the University of Leiden, 


mosf warmly for the unflinching way in which he helped and en- 
couraged mc while this work was in progress. I also like to thank 
Dr. Franciscus Kuiper, Emeritus Professor of Vedic and San- 
skrit at the same university, and his wife, since it was their con- 
stant friendship and personal encouragement which steadied my 
frayed nerves throughout the years. It is only fair to say, 
moreover, that two articles by them, more than anything else, 
helped to shape my understanding of Indian thought. These are; 
"Cosmogony and Conception: A Query," by Kuiper {History of 
Religions, Vol. 10, No. 2, November, 1970, pp. 91-138; listed in 
the Bibliography, below), in which he correlated Yogic ex- 
periences as well as the vision of the Vedic poets with an 
anamnesis of prenatal and prcconceptional events; and "Er- 
fahrung des Unerfahrbaren bei Sarikara," by Vetter (G. 
Oberharumcr, ed., Transzendenzcrfahruttg, Vollzugshorizonl des 
Heils: Das Problem in indischer und christlichtr Tradition., Vienna, 
1978, pp. 45-59), in which Samkara's doctrine about mystical 
experience is put forward in a very consistent and clear way. A 
third such "keystone" of my thinking has been an article by 
Lambert Schmithausen, "Spirituelle Praxis und philosophische 
Theorie im Buddhismus" {Zeilschrift fur Mtssionswissenschafl und 
Rrligionsuiissetischa/:, Miinster, 1973, No. 3, pp. 161-86), which I 
should recommend to everyone interested in Indian philosophy. 
Finally, my understanding of the PS has been greatly enhanced 
by constant reference to the many fine expositions of 
philosophical and theological problems by the late Erich 
Przywara SJ in Anahgia Entis (listed in the Bibliography); it is my 
conviction that the latter work will sooner or later be instrumen- 
tal in a revival of philosophy, to which Indian philosophy will no 
doubt contribute from yet another quarter. Readers who want to 
delve more deeply into the problems posed by Vedaiila 
metaphysics and soteriology than they may with help from the 


present book, should turn to the latest book by T. Vetter, Sludien 
zvr Lehre und Entwickiung Sankaras (Publications of the Dc Nobili 
Research Library, Vol. VI; Vienna: Ceroid/ Leiden: Brill/Delhi: 

Banarsidass, 1979). 



(1) pararh parasyah prakrtcr anadim ckarh nivijjarh bahudha guhasu / 
sarvalayarh sarvacaracarastham tvarru'vavi§nurh saranam prapadye // 

(2) aimamburasau nikhilo 'pi loko magno 'pi nacarnati nck^ale ca / 
ascaryam elan mrgaifsnikabhe bhavambura&iu ramarr mr?aiva // 

(3) garbhagrhava^asambhavajanmajaramaranaviprayogabdhau I 
jagad alnkya nimagnarh praha gurutii pranjaJih sijiyah // 

(4) tvarh sarigavcdavctla bht-lla sarii&yaganasya rtavakta / 
sariisararnavaiaranapras'narii prcchamy aharh bhagavan // 

(5) dlrghe 'smin sachsarc samsaratah kasya kcna sarhbandhab / 
karma subhasubhaphaladam anubhavati gatagatair iha kah // 

(6) karmagunajalabaddho jivah sarhsarati kosakara iva / 

mohandhakaragahanat lasya katham bandhanan moksah // 

(7) gunapurusavibhagajne dharmadharmau na bandhakau bhavatah / 
iti gadiiapurvavakyaih prakrcirh puru$arh ca me bruhi // 

(8) ity adharo bhagavan prjtah sijyena tarn sa hovaca / 

vidujam apy acigahanarh vaktavyam idarh srnu tarhapi rvam // 


(1) I lake refuge in Thee alone, who art Visnu: superior 1 to the supreme 
Primordial Matter (JrraMrti), without beginning, one,' multifariously 
present 3 in the hearts,* the support of everything, 5 immanent in 
everything mobile and immobile. 

(2) The whole world, though submerged in the ocean of the Self (dlman), 
neither drinks from nor looks at it. It is a mystery that [the world] 
just blindly lusts for the ocean of existences, which is like a mirage.* 

(3) The student, on looking down upon the world as being submerged in 
the ocean of getting' to live in the womb's abode, of birth, old age, 
death, and separation, said" to the Teacher (gum), while making 
obeisance with his hands: 9 

(4) "Thou knowest the Vedas 10 together with their Angas," resolvcst the 
multitude or doubts, and speakest the truth (rta)." Thee, O Lord, 
[ ask the question of how to cross the ocean of Transmigration 

(5) "Who is he who transmigrates in this' 3 long 14 Transmigration, and 
by what is he connected |to itj? Who experiences here, IJ through 
comings and goings,'" the Act (karman) which gives pure and impure 
results? 17 

(6) "The Soul (Jiva), bound by the net 1 * of Acts and Qualities {£upa),'° is 
in Transmigration like a chrysalis [in its cocoon]. 30 How is it to be 
delivered (mokfa) from bondage, which it is hard to penetrate because 
of the darkness (consisting) of Delusion (moha)? 21 

(7) "Merit (dharma) and Demerit (adharma)' iJ do not bind him who knows 
the distinction between the Qualities and the Soul {purufa).'' 1 In ac- 
cordance with [these] sentences, as pronounced in the foregoing, 3 * 
explain to mc Primordial Matter and Soul!" 

(8) The Master, Adhara," questioned thus by the student, said to him: 
Although that which is to be said [about this] in the following is very 
hard to penetrate into even for those who have knowledge, do you 
hear it nevertheless! 

18 TEXT 

(9) satyam iva jagad asacyarh mulaprakrtcr idarii krtam yena / 
lam pranipatyopendrarh vak?ye paramarthasaram idara // 

(10) avyaktad andam abhud andad brahma tatah prajasargah / 
mayamayi pravjitih sarhhriyaca iyam punah kramaSah // 

(11) mayamayo 'py aceta gunakaranaganah karoti karmani / 
tadadhi;thata dehi sacetano 'pi na karoti kimcid api // 

(12) yadvad acetanam api san nikatasthe bhramakc bhramati loham / 
tadval karanasamuhai ceslati cidadhijlhite dche II 

(13) yadvat savitary udite karoti karmani jivaloko 'yam / 
na ca tani karoli ravir na karayati tadvad atmapi // 

(14) manaso 'harhkaravimurcchitasya caitanyabodhitasycha / 
puru?abhimanasukhaduhkhabhavana bhavati mudhasya // 

(15) karta bhokta dra$|asroi karmanam uttamadinam / 

in tat svabhavavimalo 'bhimanyate sarvago 'py atma // 

(16) nanavidbavarnanaih varnarh dhatte yathamalalj sphajikah / 
tadvad upadher gunabhavitasya bhavarii vibhur dhatte // 


(9) I shall propound this "Essence of Supreme Truth" (Paramdrthasdra), 
after making obeisance to that Upendra [ = Visnu), 1 '* by whom this 
unreal 27 world was made from Primordial Matter as something 
seemingly real. 28 

(10) From the Unmanifest {avyakta)^ there came into being an Egg 
(art(/a); 30 from the Egg, Brahma;" from Him, [all) creatures 
sprang." [Then] this Manifestation (pravrtti), which consists of 
Magic (mdyd), 3i is absorbed back again in [reverse] order. 34 

(11) The assembly of Qualities and Organs (karana), 33 although illusory 
[and] unspiritual, accomplishes [all]'*" acts. The Embodied [Soul] 
(dehin), 37 which is the former's ruler,*" accomplishes nothing at all," 
although it is spiritual.* 9 

(12) Just as iron moves if a magnet is close, although it is unspiritual,*' in 
the same way the assembly of the organs*' moves, if the body is ruled 
by the Spirit (cil)." 

(VI) Just as, when the sun has risen, this world of living beings (jivahka) 
performs acts, yet 4 * the sun docs not perform them or have them 
performed, so [neither does] the Self. 49 

(14) The Inner Organ (manas)/ 6 Tilled with ego consciousness*' (ahamkata- 
vimuTcckila) , unspiritual (mudha),* 6 [but seemingly] made spiritual by 
the Spirit [ = Soul] (catlanya-bodhila),* 9 here 10 identifies itself with the 
soul and imputes to it [its own characteristics, viz.] pleasure and 
sorrow. 5t 

(15) Therefore, although the Self is all-pervasive and by its nature free 
Irom impurities, it is wrongly considered [as follows]: "I am the one 
who performs, experiences, and views acts from the highest ones 
[i.e., Vedic rites] 51 downward."" 

(16) As a spotless crystal adopts the colour of variously coloured things 
[nearby], just so the All-Pervasive [Self] (vibhuf* adopts the state 
[viz., divinity, humanity, etc.] of an UpddhP* created by the 
Qualities (guna). 3 * 

20 TEXT 

(17) gacchali gacchati salile dinakarabimbara sthite sthitim yati / 
antahkarane gacchati gacchaty atmapi tadvad iha II 

(18) rahur adrsyo 'pi yatha saiibimbasthah prakasate jagati / 
sarvagato 'pi tathaima buddhistho dfsyatam cti // 

(19) sarvagatarii nirupamam advanam tac cetasa garnyam / 
yad buddhigatatti hrahmopalabhyale ft$ya b<xlhyarii tat // 

(20) buddhimano'harnkaras tanmatrendriyaganas ca bhutaganah / 
sarhsarasargaparirakiianak^aniah prakrtah hcyah // 

(21) dharmadharmau sukhaduhkhakalpana svarganarakavasas ca / 
utpattimdhanavarna.Srama na saniihu paramarthe // 

(22) rnrgatr^nayam udakarti £ukiau rajatam bhujamgarno rajjvam / 
taimirikacandrayugavad bhrantam nikhilaiii jagadrupam // 

(23) yadvad dinakara cko vibbati salila«tycsu sarveyu / 
tadvat sakabpadhigv avasthito bhati paramatma // 

(24) kham iva gha?adi$v antar bahih sthitam brahma sarvapindejju / 
dchc 'harn ity anatmani buddhih samsarabandhaya // 


(17) A reflection of the sun in the sea moves or comes to a standstill as the 
sea moves or comes to rest: the Self, 57 too, moves likewise here as the 
Inner Organ (an(ahkarana) i9 moves." 

(18) As Rahu, 60 though invisible, becomes visible on earth, if [and insofar 
as] he is situated at the moon disk, so the Self, though all-pervasive, 
becomes visible," if [and insofar as] it is situated in [the Inner Organ 
here called] Buddhi." 

(19) That Brahman which is preceived as present in (he Buddhi must be 
understood as all-pervasive, unequalled, 63 and without multiplicity 5 * 
by the mind (eetas): M that must be known, O student! 

(20) Buddhi, 6 '' Manas,™ Ego Consciousness (ahamkdm) ,"* and the 
assemblies of Pure Entities (tanmatra)'' 9 and of Sense Faculrics (m- 
driya)™ ]as well as] the assembly of the [Great] Elements (\mahd-\ 
bhula), 7 ' must be rejected, [because,] being derived from Primordial 
Matter {ptakria), n they are capable of creating and maintaining 

(21) Merit and Demerit,-" the imagining of pleasure and sorrow, and the 
residing in heaven or hell, birth, death, caste (varna), and social life 
stage (dirama) do not exist'* in this absolutely real (iha paramdTthe)' i 
[Self, but they do exist in the SclPs reflected image in the Inner 
Organ ] . 

(22) The entire appearance of (the Self as] the world is erroneous, n like 
water [appearing] in a mirage," silver in mother-of-pearl, a snake in 
a rope,'" or two moons in someone ill with Timira." 

(23) Just as the one sun appears [as present] in all water reservoirs [and 
hence as many suns], so the Supreme Self (fiaramdlman)*" 1 appears as 
present in all Upddhii Si (and hence as many selves]. 

(24) Brahman [which is limited only by illusion, but is unlimited in 
reality] 82 is present in all bodies (pinao)," both inside and outside,"* 
as space [though unlimited, is present both inside and outside of) 
jars, etc." 5 The idea (buddhi) of an '"ego" (aham ili) relative to the 
body (deka), which is not the Self (andtman), [makes J for bondage to 

22 TEXT 

(25) sarvavikalpanahinah suddho buddho 'jaramarah s'antab / 
amalah sakrd vibhatas ceiana acma khavad vyapi // 

(26) rasaphanitasarkarikagudakhanda vikftayo yatliaivek$oh / 
ladvad avasthabhcdah paramatniany eva bahurupah // 

(27) vijnananraryamipranaviraddehajatipindanlab / 

vyavaharas tasyalmany etc Vasthavise^ab syiih // 

(28) rajjvaih nasti bbujaihgah sarpabhayaih bhavaii hetuna kena / 
ladvad dvaitavikalpabhrantir avtdya na satyam idam // 

(29) etat tad andhakaram yad anatmany atmata bhrantya / 
na vidanti vasudevarh sarvatmanarh mudhah // 

(30) pranadyanamabhedair atmanarii saiiivicatya jalam iva / 
sarhharati vasudevah svavibhutya kridamana iva // 

(31) tribhir eva vi£vataijasaprajnais tair adimadhyanidhanakhyaih / 
jagratsvapnasusuptair bhramabhutaii chaditaiti turyarn // 

(32) mohayativatmanam svamayaya dvaitarupaya devab / 

upalabhate svayam cvam gubagatam purusam atmanam II 


(25) The Self (atman) is devoid of all concepts (oikalpana), pure, [always 
and forever] waked (or, illuminated: buddha), 66 unagetng, 
immortal, 87 calm, spotless, having appeared once [and forever], 88 
spiritual (celana), 99 [and] pervasive, like space. 90 

(26) As there are [various] modifications of [one and] the same" sugar 
cane, viz., juice, condensate, ground sugar, treacle, and candy, so 
there are different states, [manifesting themselves] in many forms, in 
the [one and] same Supreme Self.* 2 

(27) The latter's names" [in the Veda]" are: ((1)] Knowledge {vtjiidna);" 
|(2)] Inner Controller (antaiydmin);*' ((3)] Breath (/.rajia); 97 [(4)| 
Sovereign Body (virad-deha)™ finally, [(5)] the [individual] Lumps 
{pirufa) [i.e., bodies," belonging to a particular] species. 100 Those 
[five categories] may be particular states' 01 in the Self. 10 '' 

(28) There is no snake in a rope:"" for what reason is there fear of a 
snake? Similarly [to the error of assuming a snake], the erroneous 
concept (oiJcalpa-tthranti)' * of plurality {doaifa)* * [in the Self is un- 
founded and mere] Ignorance (aoidyd); i0t diat [plurality] is not true. 

(29) This is "darkness," 10 ' viz., [for] the fact of being the Self [to be 
wrongly attributed] to what is not the Self. 108 Deluded by [this] 
error, 10 * people do not recognize Vasudeva [ - Visnu]" as the Self 
of every thing. ' " 

(30) After having extended himself 12 through infinite varieties," 5 viz., 
breath," 4 etc., like [a feat of) magic," 5 Vasudeva, by his own 
sovereignty,"* reabsorbs [everything] as if playing." 7 

(31) The Fourth One (lurya)"* is hidden by the three states alike" 8 of be- 
ing awake, l2 ° dreaming, m and deep sleep" 2 — which are errors 123 —, 
designated as beginning, middle, and end 124 [respectively, while 
commonly known as] VisVa, 125 Taijasa," 6 and Prajna 12 ' [respec- 
tively]. 128 

(32) God 129 deludes himself, 130 as it were, by his own Magic (mayo),™ 
which consists of plurality (ifoa/ta), 1 " and thus perceives himself as 
the [individual] soul (purusa) 1 " present in the heart.' 34 


(33) As a variety of forms appears in the sky because of smoke rising from 
fire, so creation, expanded into multiplicity, 131 appears in Visnu by 
his own Magic, 

(34) In the usual conception," 6 yet not according to supreme reality, the 
Lord is, as it were, calm, if the Inner Organ (manas) is calm, is, as it 
were, joyed, if the Inner Organ is joyed, is, as it were, deluded, if the 
Inner Organ is deluded. 137 

(35) As the expanse of the sky is not soiled by clouds or by smoke going 
upward, so the supreme Soul (puruja) is not touched by the modifica- 
tions {vikdra)' 3 * of Primordial Matter {prakrti). 

(36) Just as, even if one jar is filled with impurities, viz., smoke, etc., 
others are not attained by impurities, so [it is with) the Soul (Jiva), 
too, in this case. 15 * 

(37) The Qualities (guna), 1 * constrained within the body and the sense 
faculties, perform action for the sake of their own experience. Action 
docs not bind at all those who know: "J am not a doer, that is not 
mine." 141 

(38) We may well assume that action by which a body has originated was 
committed by another [i.e., a previous] 117 body. This [action, com- 
mitted by that previous body,]'" must inevitably be experienced; its 
destruction is taught [to result] only from its experience. 

(39) That action which, amassed [in the present body]' 44 prior to the rise 
of knowledge, is lapped by the flames of the fire of knowledge,' 43 is 
incapable of [producing a new)' 4 * birth, like a seed burned by fire. 

(40) That action which is performed after the creation of knowledge, 
likewise' 4 ' does not attach to the performer, any more than water to a 
lotus leaf. 148 

(41) The wise proclaim that here [among embodied beings] 149 the mass of 
actions is performed by speech, body, and mind. I am not one of 
these, 150 however, nor do I perform their actions. 

(42) From the destruction of the seed'" of the result of an action [there 
results] the destruction of [re-)birth; and there is no doubt as to that. 

26 TEXT 

(43) yadvad islkatularh pavanoddhutam hi dasa diso yati / 
brahmani tatrvajnanat tathaiva karmani taitvavidah // 

(44) ksirad uddhftam ajyarh ksiptam yadvan na purvavar t asm in / 
prakrtiguncbhyas ladvat prthakkrta^ eetano natma // 

(45) gunamayamayagahanam nirdhuya yatha tamah sahasrarhsuh / 
bahyabhyantaracari saindhavaghanavad bhavet puru?ah // 

(46) yadvad dcho 'vayava mpd cva lasya vikarajatani / 
ladvat sthavarajarigamam advaitarh dvaitavad bhati // 

(47) ekasmat kjeirajnad bahvyab k?etrajnajaiayo jarah / 
lohagatad iva dahanat samantato vigphulirigaganah // 

(48) te gunasamgamadosad baddha iva dhanyajatayah svaru?aih / 
janma labhantc lavad yavan na jnanavahnina dagdhah // 

(49) iriguna caicanyatmani sarvagaic 'vasthite 'khiladhare / 
kurute sr?{im avidya sarvatra spr^yaie taya natma // 

(50) rajjvam bhujamgahetuh prabhavavinaiau yatha na slab / 
jagadutpattivinaiau na ca karanam asti tadvad iha // 


If one has recognized this, one becomes free of darkness, and shines, 
naturally splendid,'" like the sun. 

(43) For, as the tuft of a reed, disturbed by wind, goes in ten directions, 
so, too, [go] the acts of him who knows the truth, by knowledge of 
truth in respect of Brahman. ti5 

(44) Just as clarified butter, drawn from milk, is not in that [milk] as 
before, if it is cast [back into it), so the spiritual Self, if it has [once] 
been separated from the Qualities' M of Primordial Matter, is not 
(together with these any longer].'" 

(45) After destroying the impenetrable darkness' 56 of Magic (mtiya), 
formed by the Qualities, as the thousand-rayed [sun destroys] the 
darkness [of the night), the Soul (jpurusa) will be active both outside 
and inside [the body]," 7 as a lump of salt (once dissolved in water, is 
no longer restricted to its original size). 1 ** 

(46) Just as the limbs are the body, and as the modified products of clay 
arc just clay, so the immobile and mobile world, which is without 
multiplicity (advaita), appears as multiplicity [dbaila). tn 

(47) From ihe one knower of the field 160 there are born many species of 
field knowers,'* 1 just as from the fire in | red-hot | iron showers of 
sparks [emanate) in »i\ directions. 161 

(48) They are bound, as it were, by the fault of commingling with the 
Qualities, [like]' 63 specific grains, (which are bound] by their husks. 
They acquire [re-]birth, until they are burned by the Fire of 
knowledge (jnana-vahni),"* 

(49) Ignorance (avidya), having three Qualities,'" effectuates creation 
everywhere inside the Self, which is spiritual, all -pervasive, con- 
tinual, the support of everything;' 66 the Self is not touched by that 
[Ignorance). Ib ' 

(50) Just as there is in a rope neither cause for a snake nor [its] origination 
or destruction, so there is here [i.e., in this Sell] neither the world's 
origination or destruction, nor (its) cause. 16,8 

28 TEXT 

(51) janmavina^anagamanagamamalasambandhavarjito nilyam /' 
akasa iva ghaladisu sarvatma sarvadopetah // 

(52) karmasubhasubhaphalasukhaduhkhair yogo bhavaty upadhlnam / 
tatsaihsargad bundhas taskarasariigad ataskaraval '■■ 

(53) dehagunakaranagocarasarhgat purujasya yavad iha bhivah / 
lavan mayapaiaih sarhsare baddha iva bhati // 

(54) mafrpitrputrabandhavadhanabhogavibhagasarhmudhah f 
janmajaramaranamaye cakra iva bhramyate janmh II 

(55) lokavyavaharakrtaih ya ihavidyam upasate mudhah / 

te jananamaranadharmano 'ndharh rama ctya khidyantc // 

(56) himaphenabudbuda iva jalasya dhumo yatha vahneh I 
tadvat svabhavabhuta mayaisa kinita visnoh // 

(57) cvarii dvaitavikalpaiii bhramasvaruparh vimohanirii tnayam / 
utsrjya sakalani$kalam advaitam bhavaycd brahrna // 


(51) The Self of all, which is permanently free of a connection to birth 
[and] destruction, to coming [and) going, [and] to the impurities, 1 " 
is ever [seemingly]'" connected [to birth, destruction, etc.], like the 
ether in jars, etc. Jin that the ether seems to be connected to the lat- 
ter's origination, destruction, etc., although it is not really connected 

to these]."" 

(52) The Upadhis [i.e.. the body and the organs)' 72 are connected to ac- 
tions and to pleasure and sorrow, which are the pleasant and unplea- 
sant results [of those actions].'" Bondage [stems] from connection 
with those [Upadhis], just as someone who is not a thief [is caught | 
because he is in the company of thieves. 

(53) As long as the Soul (pumja) exists here [in this body) because of its 
bondage to body, qualities, organs, and sense objects, 1 " so long does 
it appear, by the fetters of Magic, as if tied to the Process of Rebirth 
(.somjara). 1 " 

(54) Perplexed by (the idea of] having a particular mother and father and 
particular sons, relatives, wealth, and enjoyments, man 176 is reeling 
around in |the Cycle of Transmigration],'" which consists of birth, 
old age, and death, as in a wheel.' 7t 

(55) Those perplexed ones who abide here in Ignorance, which is caused 
by the usual conception of the world." 9 suffer when they have 
entered into blind darkness, 180 [because) they are bound to birth and 

(56) Just as snow,"" foam, and bubbles [form out of the own nalurej"" of 
water, and as smoke [forms out of the own nature] of fire,'" so is this 
Magic (mdyd) of Visnu reputed' 8 * to have originated from his own 
nature. 18 * 

(57) After one has thus discarded Illusion (mdyd), which, being delusive, 
has the nature of fallacy 186 [in that it produces) the idea of plurality, 
let him realize Brahman, which is without plurality,' 87 being both with 
and without parts.' 88 



(58) yadvat salile salilam kslrc ksirarh samlrane vayuh / 
tadvad brahmani vimate bhavanaya tanmayatvam upayati // 

(59) iltharh dvanasamuhc bhavanaya brahmabhuyam upayate / 
ko mohah kah sokah sarvarii brahmavalokayacah // 

(60) vigaiopadhih sphafikah svaprabhaya bhati nirmalo yadvat / 
ciddipah svaprabhaya tatha vibhatiha nirupadhih // 

(61) gunaganakaranasarirapranais tanmatrajatisukhaduhkhaih / 
aparamrsto vyapl cidrupo 'yam sada vimalah // 

(62) drasja sYota ghrata sparsayita rasayita grahita ca / 
dehi dehcndriyadhlvivarjitah syan na kartasau // 

(63) eko naikatravasihito 'ham aiivaryayogalo vyaptah / 
akasavad akhilam idarh na kascid apy atra samdehah // 

(64) atmaivedarh sarvarii niskalasakaJarii yadaiva bhavayati / 
mohagahanad viyukias tadaiva paramesvaribhutah II 

(65) yad yat siddhantagamatarkesu prabruvanti ragandhah / 
anumodamas tat tat tesarh sarvatmavadadhiya // 

(66) sarvakaro bhagavan upasyate yena ycna bhavena / 
tarn tarn bhavaih bhutva cintamanivat samabhyeti // 


(58) As water 189 becomes one with water, 190 milk 1 *' with milk, 19 ' wind 193 
with wind, 15 '* so, by meditation on the spotless 194 Brahman, [man] 
becomes one with it, 

(59) If, in that way. the sum toial of plurality has receded into the state of 
Brahman by meditation, no delusion, no sorrow [remains] for him, as 
he looks on everything as Brahman. " 6 

(60) just as a spotless crystal shines by Us own splendour, once [its] 

Upddhis' 9 * have been removed, so does here Jin the bodyj the light 
of the Spirit (fir) shine by its own splendour, [as soon as il is 
observed]' 9 * without [ils] Upddhis [viz.. body and organs]." 9 

(61) This [Self] is untouched by the assembly of the Qualities,™" by the 
organ, 301 the body. 303 breaths, 3 " Pure Elements {lanmdlray* 
genera, 30i pleasures,"* [or] sorrows, 3 " is all- pervasive, has the Spirit 
for its nature, 30 " [and) is spotless forever. 

(62) [The Self, insofar as] 309 it has a body, is someone who sees, hears, 
smells, touches, tastes, and apprehends. 210 [However, insofar as] 3 " it 
is free of body, sense faculties, and thought {dhi) |i.e., the Inner 
Organ],"'' that [same Self) 3 " cannot be an agent [of vision, etc.). 

(63) 1 (aham) [arn] one, not fixed in one place, [but,) due to my sovereign- 
ty, 314 pervading this all 3 " like the ether (akasa). [There is] not a single 
doubt as to this, [viz., 

(64) the fact that] this all is only the Self. 316 Only when one realizes [this 
Self) as both having and not having parts, 2 " does one become free 
from the impenetrable darkness of Delusion (moha), 1 * 8 and become 
Supreme Lord (paranusvara) 1 ' 9 at the same lime. 330 

(65) We consent to whatever j others j, who are blind with greed, 231 pro- 
claim in [their] SiddJidntas,'"'* Agamas, vii and Tarkas,"* since all thai 
[testifies to the orientation of] their fought toward [our] doctrine, 
according to which everything is the Self."* 

(66) By whichever appearance (bhdna) the Lord, who has all forms, is 
meditated upon, Lhat appearance he adopts, 336 as he is like a jewel 
[fulfilling all] wishes. 

32 TEXT 

(67) narayanam atmanarh jnalva sargasthilipralayahetum I 
sarvajnah sarvagatah sarvah sarvesvaro bhavati // 

(68) atmajnas tarati sucarii yasmad vidvan bibheti na kutaScit / 
rnriyor api rnaranabhayarh na bhavaty anyat kutas tasya // 

(69) kjayavrddhivadhyaghaiakabandhanamokyair vivarjitam nityam / 
paramarthaianvam etad yad ato 'nyat tad anruuii sarvam // 

(70) evarh prakpirn purugam vijfiaya nirastakalpanajalah / 
atmaramah prasamam samasthitah kevalTbhavati // 

(71) nalakadalivenuvana naiyanti yatha svapujpam asadya / 
tadval svabhavabhutah svabhavatarh prapya nasyanti // 

(72) bhinne 'jnanagranchau chinne sariisayaganc £ubhe k$Fnc / 
dagdhc ca janraabijc paramatmanam harirh yati // 

(73) mok$asya naiva kirhcid dhamasti na capi garnanam anyatra / 
ajnanamayagranther bhcdo yas tarn vidur mokjam // 

(74) buddhvaivam asatyam idarii vijnor mayatmakarii jagadrupam / 
vigatadvandvopadhikabhogasarogo bhavec chantah // 

(75) buddhva vibhaktaih prakrtim purusah sarhsaramadhyago bhavati / 
nirmuktah sarvakarmabhir ambujapattrani yatha salilaih // 


(67) By recognizing Narayana | - Visnu], who is the cause of emanation, 
subsistence, and dissolution, as [one's] Sell, everyone becomes om- 
niscient, all-pervasive, [and] Lord of everything. " 7 

(68) He whr> knows the Self transcends [all) sorrow. 238 Because the wise 
fears nothing, [not] even death," 9 there is no fear of dying. [And] 
whence [might) he have another [fear|?" 

(69) That which is permanently devoid of destruction [and) growth, being 
killed [and] killing, bondage [and] liberation, is Supreme Reality 
{paramajthatattva). All that is different from it is untrue (anr/a). 3 *' 

(70) Thus having distinctly recognized Primordial Matter (prakrti) and 
Soul {purusa), 7 ^ one is free from the net of imagination,"' takes [no 
longer) pleasure in [anything except one's) Self, has reached 
quietude (prasama), and becomes "separated" (ktvala) [from Matter 
once and for all in the moment of death, so one cannot be reborn].* 84 

(71) As reed, plantain tree, bamboo, and cane are exhausted upon prod- 
ucing their own flower, so arc [things which, like a body, etc.] stem 
from their own nature, exhausted on reaching [awareness on the part 
of man of] the fact thai they are [merely] their own nature. 2 " 

(72) When the fetter of ignorance {ajnana) 21 * is broken, "' the host of 
doubts 238 cut, [not only impure, but also] 25 * pure [action]*' 
destroyed, and the seed of rebirth burned, 2 * 1 one goes to the 
Supreme Self (paramatman), to Hari [ » Visnu]."* 

(73) There is neither any place" 3 for Release (mokfa), nor [does Release 
consist in] going elsewhere. Breaking the fetter which consists of ig- 
norance: 2 * 4 that is what one knows as Release," 5 

(74) If one has thus recognized this unreality {asalya), which consists of 
Visnu's Magic {maya) [and] has the form of the world, 2 * 6 one will 
become tranquil (sdnla), having lost attachment to experience, which 
has for its condition [the imagined existence of] contrasts [e.g., be- 
tween warm and cold, light and dark, etc.]." 7 

(75) As [soon as] the Soul (pum?a) has understood Matter (prakrti) as dif- 
ferent [from itself], 2 " it becomes, [even though it still] exists in the 

34 TEXT 

(76) asnan yadva tadva sarhvito yen a kenacic chantah / 
yatra kvacana ca £ayl vimucyaic sarvabhutatma // 

(77) hayamedhasahasrany apy atha kurute brahmaghataJak?ani / 
paramarthavin na punyair na ca papaih sprsyale vimalah // 

(78) madakopahar$amatsaravi§adabhayaparu$avarjy avagbuddhih / jadavad vicarcd agadhamatih II 

(79) ulpattinasavarjitam evaih paramarlham upalabhya / 
knakrtyasaphalajanma sarvagatas li^diati yathesiam // 

(80) vyapinam abhinnam iuharii sarvatmanam vidhutananatvam / 
nirupamaparamanandarh yo veda sa tanmayo bhavati // 

(81) lirthe svapacagrhe va n.israsriirur api parityajan deham / 
jnanasamakalamuktah kaivalyarh yati hatasokah // 

(82) punyaya tlrthaseva nirayaya svapacasadananidhanagatih / 
punyapunyakaiarhkasparsabhave tu kirn tcna // 

(83) vrk?agrac cyutapado yadvad anicchan narah ksiiau paiati / 
tadvad gunapurusajno 'nicchann api kevallbhavati // 



midst of Transmigration (samsdra), free from all acts," 5 as a lotus leaf 
[is free) from the water [in which grows the lotus plant]. 230 

(76) He who [has become)"' the Self of all beings [and thereby 
become!" 2 tranquil, is released, whatever he eats, in whatever he 
dresses, and wherever he couches. 

(77) Whether he performs 1,000s of Horse Sacrifices, or kills 100.000s of 
Brahmins, he is not, knowing Supreme Truth, touched by either 
meritorious or evil [acts, as he is) spotless. 8M 

(78) His mind {malt) unfathomable, let him behave like a fool (ja<ia), 
discarding arrogance, anger, joy, jealousy, despondency, fear, [and) 
harshness, being without speech [and] mental organ (buddhi), not is- 
suing any laud (stotra) |or) incantation (vaf atkdra) ."* 

(79) Having thus grasped Supreme Truth, which is free of origination 
and destruction, [and] having done what had to be done, 2 " [and in 
that way having brought his] 236 existence to fruition, he stays as he 
pleases, universally present. 

(80) He who knows the Self of everything, thus revealed, 233 as 
pervasive, "" free from diversity, 139 incomparable, supreme bliss, 2 * 
becomes one with it. 

(81) [Because he has already been] released at the very time knowledge 
[produced itself], 2 *' he goes toward "Separation" {kaivalya)**' 1 — sor- 
row having been destroyed—, when he departs the body, even while 
[suffering from] loss of consciousness [i.e., even if he no longer 
thinks about Visnu, 2 " slaying] in either a place of pilgrimage, or the 
[unclean] house of a dog eater. 

(82) Visiting holy places [to die there is]*** for one's good, dying in the 
home of a dog eater, for one's evil. Yet what is the point in this, if 
one cannot be touched by the stains of good and evil? 263 

(83) Just as a man falls to the ground from the top of a tree involuntarily, 
if he has lost his foothold, similarly, someone who knows the 
Qualities {guna) and the Soul (purusa) 166 becomes "separate" 
{Aeoata),* 67 even involuntarily. 26 * 

36 TEXT 

(84) pararnarthamargasadhariam arabhyaprapya yogam api nama I 
suralokabhogabhogT muditamana modate sur iram II 

(85) vi$aye$u sarvabhaumah sarvajanaih pujyate yatha raja / 
bhuvane$u sarvadevair yogabhra§?as tatha pujyah // 

(86) mahata kalena mahan manusyam prapya yogam abhyasya / 
prapnoli divyam amrtairi yat tat paramarh padam vi§noh // 

(87) vedanta^astram akhilam vilokya £e§as tu jagadadharah / 
aryapancafltya babandha para m art hasaram idarn II 

II hi paramarthasararh samapiam //' 



(84) Even if he, after undertaking to follow the road to Supreme Truth, 
does not reach [mystic] Union (yoga) 7 * 9 [with the Supreme Being], he 
enjoys himself with gladdenend mind for a very long time, taking 
part in the joys of the worlds of the gods. 

(85) Just as a king of the entire earth is worshipped in his realms by all 
people, so ought someone who has (striven toward, but| not suc- 
ceeded in [mystic] Union to be worshipped in the [heavenly] realms 
by all gods. 

(86) Having |again] 3ro obtained the human state after a long time, 271 
[and] concentrating [again] on [mystic] Union, 373 [that] Great 
One 271 [thereupon] reaches that supreme place of Visnu,"* which is 
divine 7 ' 5 [and] immortal. 

(87) After considering the entire Doctrine of Vedantd* 16 [i.e., the 
Upanifads, Adi-J&csa, 3 " the support of the worlds, has put together 
this "Essence of Supreme Truth" in 85 Aryd |verses]. 

Thus is completed the "Essence of Supreme Truth." 


' On the qualifications of God, who is the Soul, as expressed by PS 1 , 
sec the Introduction, above. R. quotes KapHU 3. 1 Ib-d on the qualifica- 
tion of "superior", "Higher than the Unmanifest [ - Prakrfi] is Punifa, 
nothing is higher than Purusa; this is the limit, this the highest goal." 
Those are the three podia R. omits in his gloss on PS 53. (Cf. n. 174 

1 R. wonders: If God is one, how can Matter be one? For we read in 
SvU 4.5 thai Prakjli is "one, unborn, red. white, and black, emitting 
many creatures of its form." No contradiction is possible between a God 
who is one, and Matter which is one. if that means that boih are different 
from each other. This seems to be the intention not only of this opening 
verse, Inn of the student's questions in PS +•/ as well. R explains the 
dualism theory as follows: Whereas Matter is one and supreme, the Soul 
- God is one in the sense thai u is autonomous, because it is spiritual 
(which Matter is not), and therefore superior. He also quotes MNU 2 lo 
this effect: "Then, the permanent Lord, the one Narayana, " etc. On 
the Samkhya and Vedanta elements in PS, see the Introduction. 

' R. quotes the jagati verse, RS 6.47.18c (misaligned, however), in 
support: indro mdydbhifi purumpa iyatt, "Through his feats of magic. Indra 
goes in many forms." (Cf. BU 2.5.19.) 

* On the epithet "present in the heart" (guhagata) as a qualification of 
the Self, ihe Soul, or (>od, see, e.g.,, BSBh 1.2.11, where we 
find several of the passages from Upamsad* also quoted in an extremely 
interesting article by Kuipcr (1964, pp. 124 IT.), who writes (pp. 125-6): 
"It would require a special study to demonstrate the parallelism which 
for the Vcdic poets exists between the macrocosmic opening of the 
primordial hill and the microcosmic opening of the mind, as the result of 
Indra's vrttahdiya- . I must confine myself to the statement that the 
Rigvedic seer gets his vision with or in his heart (hfda or fadi). This heart 
is equated to the cosmic mountain and its subterranean ocean... If it 
may be assumed that guhayam in the Upanisads is a substitute of the later 
language for such Rigvedic terms as ttraje, irtie, dsman, which all denote 
the nether world viewed as an enclosure, the parallelism between the 
revelation of the 'sun in the rock' and the Upanisadic vision of the atman 
'placed in the cavity' is apparent." From Buddhist scripture, a similar 
passage is known: in Dhammapada 37 (also quoted in Asahga's 


Mahtiyanasamgraha 2.12), the Spirit is said to reside "in the cavity," viz., 
of the heart [guhasaya). (See also n, 274 below.) 

' Compare the name of Adhdra ("support"), and ihe epithet 
Jagadadhara ("support of the worlds"), given the teacher {guru, called 
Lord, bhagaval), Ananta- or Naga- or Adi-Sesa. i.e.. the author of this 
book, in verses 8 and 87. rcsp. (Also sec n. 25.) 

• R. explains this "mirage" (mrgotwika) as identical to Prakrti, "the 
power to obscure the innate form of VLsnu, and to manifest another 
form, which power is mtija, here called prakrti. ' ' See PS 22 on the mirage. 

7 R. glosses sambhava ("origination") by prdpu ("obtainment ). 

• This translation by a preterite of a Sanskrit perfect tense which, as a 
perfective, might denote the present (as in Russian), is corroborated by 
PS 8. 

• R. quotes MuU 1.2.12: "With folded hands let him approach only 
a teacher, so as to learn that (peace), a teamed man who has his stand in 
Brahman," and BhC 4.34: '"Those who know,, have vision of the truth, 
will teach it." 

10 Vi*., flg % Yajur-, Sama-, and Alharva-Veda, containing visionary 
poetry, ritual prescriptions, ritual songs, and magic rules, respectively. 

11 Viz., Phonetics (iikfa). Grammar {tfdkaratut). Etymology (nirukta), 
Metrics (chandas). Astronomy (yefya), and Ceremonial (katpa), which 
are all used to determine the correct maintenance and application of 
Vedic poetry and prose. 

" R. interprets "truth" as "the complete meaning of Vedanta [i.e., 
of the Upmifads\, formed by the words of the Lord, Brahma, etc." 
(Cf. n. 276.) 

" According to R., "this" refers to the qualifications given in verse 3 
as "the womb's abode, elc." 

'♦ R. explains "long" as follows: "This means 'without beginning': 
for, were transmigration to have a beginning, those who are released 
would be bound again, which is an absurd conclusion." Cf. Samkara, 
BSBh 2.1.36: "(The beginningless-ncss of the world] recommends itself 
to reason, and is seen [from Scripture]." 

1S R.: "In the triad of worlds (iokotraye)," viz., heaven, earth, and 
intermediate plane (while the underworld is mosdy considered to belong 
to the earth; if not, it is substituted for the intermediate plane). 

18 I.e., through the series of births and deaths. 

" R. explains: "Firsdy, it is not the Purufa who transmigrates, 


because be is all-pervasive and unstained, and through his passing from 
one world to another cannot engender a connection with acts and their 
results. Nor does Piahti transmigrate, because she can still less have 
such a connection, as she is unspiritual. The Putusa, deluded by Prakrit, 
transmigrates under the name of 'individual soul' (jivo)." 

18 The word "nci" (jdia) is often used in the sense of a (feat of) magic 
by Indian authors, as we may see, e.g., from the title of the Buddhist 
BrahmajHasuita. or "Discourse on the Net of Brahma," which is placed 
at the head of the Dighanikaya of the Pali Suttapitaka (rf. on it, e.g., Renou 
and Filliozal, 1953, p. 335); in the latter, the word is also used lo 
compare samara to a fisherman's net, in which all living beings arc 
caught. Regarding its use in PS. see also PS 30 with n. 1 15, and PS 70 
(which has a more metaphysical turn) with n. 233. 

" The Qualities of Primordial Matter are Saltva (Goodness), Rajas 
(Passion), and Tamos (Darkness). Cf. Introduction. 

,q R. explains: "The Qualities envelop the i'umsa just as its threads 
envelop a chrysalis, and their totality is the 'net,' like the chrysalis' 
COCOOD, The acts which man performs arc like the threads which the 
chrysalis produces (gradually out of its own bodyj. some pure, others im- 
pure." R. quotes in support of this view die final pdda of a Rigvedic 
verse (misassigncd by him again), which in its entirety runs as follows: 
"Having eyes, faces, arms, and feet everywhere, he kindles with two 
arms, with wings, the one god he, producing heaven and earth." (RS 
10.81.3.) Cf. n. 18, above. 

81 Translation according to commentary (p. 1 1, I. 1), which identifies 
moka with avidya ("ignorance"). Cf. below, PS 29, 55. Note that the 
words mahfa and rwha form a rhyming pair. 

" Cf PS 21, and n. 73 Also see Frauwallner, 1953, pp. 340, 344, 
371-2, and particularly 405: "Dcnn nach Sarhkhya-Lchrc gehoren 
Vcrdienst und Schuld nicht der ewigen und unveranderlichcn Seele 
an, sondcrn sic sind Zustande (bhasoh) des psychischen Organ is mus, 
namlich des Erkcnnens (buddhih)." 

13 R.: "Through knowledge, the soul (pums, i.e., purufa) attains moksa 
= katvalya ("separation")." Cf. PS 70, 81. 83. 

24 Translated as suggested by R.: PS 7cd rules 5 through 7ab, 
inasmuch as the latter put some "practical" questions; hence the 
exhortation of 7cd ("Explain to me!") is no "theoretical" problem but 
refers to the intended deliverance from bondage. 


" The Master's name means "'the support," viz., of the worlds, 
explained by R. as Ananta. The latter means Ananta-Scsa, the serpen i 
of the subterranean waters, and the support of Visnu during ihe em- 
bryonic "sleep" of the cosmos; under this latter aspect, he is identified 
with Visnu. (Cf. Kuiper. 1962. p. 144; and n. 277 ad PS 87.) 

*• Upaidra literally means "younger brother of Indra" or "helper of 
Indra." This epithet of Visnu refers lo ihe aid he granted Indra in the 
latter's cosrnogonic act by making three strides. As Kuiper (1962, 
p. 149) has wnllen: "Mis first step corresponds lo die nether world 
(which includes the earth), his second step to the upper world, but his 
third step is a mystery, not perceptible to the human eye, for it cor- 
respond! 10 the totality of the opposed moieties... All that exists is in the 
three steps, or in the third one thai represents them." Visnu 's help for 
Iiulr.i is -...he iii-d by the latter as follows: "Friend Visnu, stride out as far 
as possible." (RS 4.18.1 Id,) Thus, although Visnu, as an Aditya, is 
older than Indra. who is "the youngest of the gods." he may be said lu 
be Indra's "younger brother." or "second," i.e., the Uptndia, Ixith 
because he seronds Indra. and because he is the cosmic totality, which, 
although preceding ihe cosmogony, also follows upon the disintegration 
of the cosmic moieties (i.e., upon cosmogony itself), as it forms their 
reintegration. It is impossible, for reasons of space, to delve into this 
fascinating matter any further here, hut tin- interested reader should not 
fail to consult the many articles which Kuiper has written about it and 
which are listed in the Bibliography. 

" Cf. PS 22. 28, and 74. 

,H As was said in the Introduction, the Samkhya view on the world is 
that, since it has been derived from hakrtt, and since Prakrtt is real, the 
world is just as real as the Punqas are. 

w I.e.. Praktli, or Primordial Matter. (Cf. PS 1.) See Frauwallner, 
1953, p. 352. 

,D See Frauwallner. 1953. pp. 358-9. 

»' Sec itV , p. 359. 

™ R. quotes TU 2,1.1: "From that very Self space (or: ether) has 
sprung" [tasmad m etasmatt aimana akaiah sambkutak). 

" Cf. Introduction, and n. 185. 

'* This refers to the reabsorptiort of the universe at the end of times, 
when the evolved world is reintegrated into the primordial world in an 
order which is the reverse of the one in which it was created. See 
BS 2.3.14. as well as PS 81. 


** According to Samkhya, there are two groups of organs (karana), 
viz., external (bahya-) and internaJ (antaft-) ones. The external organs 
comprise five "action faculties" {Jcarmendnpa), which arc speech, hands, 
feel, anus, and the membrum virile; and five "sense faculties" 
(buddhindriya), which arc the ears, skin, eyes, tongue, and nose. The 
internal organs are: mind (mawu), ego consciousness (akamkata). and 
cognition (buddhC). (Cf. Frauwailncr, 1953, pp. 312, 348 ff., 369 f.) In 
PS 14, 17-19, however, only one internal organ is assumed, most likely 
under Yoga influence. R. explains "ihc assembly of qualities and 
organs" as "the assembly of ihe former's effects, viz., the body, and the 
organs," to account for the next line, in which the "embodied soul" is 
called "the ruler of that assembly." 

'* R.: "Whether of pure, impure, or mixed | - partly pure, partly 
impure) form." 

" R. identifies the embodied soul with the individual soul (Jiva). 

■ R. interprets the soul its the assembly's support rather than its 
ruler. Although this might be possible from a semantic standpoint, it is 
very unlikely in view of the next verse, which says that ihc body should 
be ruled by the Spirit. 

s » Cf. PS 37. 

*° Cf. Frauwailncr, 1953, p. 350. This verse raises the question of 
whether its author follows the Samkhya doctrine according to which 
there are many souls, or the Vedanta doctrine according to which there 
is only one soul, viz., the dlman. Because it uses the word dehin in the might bethought of as belonging to the Vedanta tradition, but 
it may jusl as well speak of "one soul" with reference to the specific body 
it rules, leaving ihe question open as to the numl>er of souls there mighr 

*' Cf. Samkara, BSBh 2.2.2, 7, Frauwallner. 1953. p. 377. 

*• This means the assembly of the body and the organs. (Cf. n. 35.) 

♦' R. identifies til with ulana (spirit), i.e., the "spiritual embodied 
soul" of PS It. (Cf. PS. 60-61.) He explains; "The assembly of the 
effects [i.e., the body] and the organs moves, if the body is ruled by die 
Spirit, i.e., if it is appropriated by the [actually independent) Spirit in 
such a way [that the latter thinks]: 'I am a man, etc." " Regarding that, 
cf., e.g., Samkara, US, Padyapmbandha, 18.65cd: "Similarly, by 
imputing spirit|-uality on the organ of cognition], the principle of 
knowledge is predicated on the organ of cognition (buddhi) in this case." 


44 On the adversative function of the Sanskrit particle ca, see Speijer, 
1886, section 441; Rcnou, 1968, section 382A. 

" On this, R. quotes BhG 5.13cd-14ab: "As the embodied [soul] in 
the city with nine gates [ - the body], neither acting nor causing to act, 
the Sovereign Lord (prabhu) emits neither the agency nor the acts of the 
world. ' ' The number nine for the gates of the body is a bit of mystery in 
a Hindu work, as Hindu authors usually assume the existence of an 
"eightfold one in the city of the body" (sec below, n. 53). However, in 
Buddhist literature, the "nine gates of the body" form a common Urpos, 
as may be seen from Vimdnavatthu-Allhakathd, Pali Text Society cd., 
p. 76, or from Suttanipdta-AuhakaJhd, id., p. 248, where they arc said to 
comprise the two ears, two eyes, two nostrils, mouth, anus, and penis. 

'• On the subject of the number of internal organs, sec n. 35. The 
assumption of a single such organ is probably due to Yoga influence, as 
Samkhya psychology was generally transformed under the influence of 
the Yoga system taught by Vyasa. Gf. Frauwallncr, 1953, pp. 41 1, 418, 
arid particularly 41)1: "Kim- drr utnsiritlcnsicn Lchren in der klassischcn 
Zeit des Samkhya-Systcms war... die Lchre von der Drciheit der 
Innenorgane. Drnkcn (manafi), Ichbcwusstsein (ahathkdrafi) und Erken- 
ncn (buddhih). Vindhyavasf scheute sich nicht, dicsc Drciheit auf- 

•' On Ego Consciousness, see Frauwallncr, 1953, pp. 309 IT., 318, 
353-4, 369, 394-5, 402. 

*■" Translation in accordance with R., who interprets mu^ha 
("deluded") by acelana ("unspiritual"). 

** Translated in accordance with R. 's gloss. 

*° R.: "Among the effects of Magic," i.e., in the phenomenal world, 

11 The correct interpretation of this clause is obtained if punifa is con- 
nected not only with abhimana, but also with snkhaduhkhabhovana, because 
sukha and dufrkha arr the characteristics of the Inner Organ. 

M As interpreted by R. 

M R. explains: Despite the pervasiveness and purity of the Self, tlu- 
Inner Organ "superimposes all that |i.e,, activity, etc.) on the Self by 
imputing to it an identity with the 'eightfold one in the city |of the 
body],' *' i.e., with the aggregate of the five breaths (which are 
breathing forth, breathing away, breathing together, breathing upward, 
and breathing through), of mind (mantis), plenitude (pur), and speech 
(aae). Cf. Frauwallncr, 1953, pp. 60, 310. 366; PS 62. 


34 R. explains (p. 19, 1. 1): "Though all-pervasive, the [Self] goes 
from one body to another, and from one world lo another, under the 
influence of Upddhis," i.e., of things which are near and determine it 
externally. Upadhi generally means "external determining factor;" see 
Vctter, 1972, p. 52, ad Sahkfepa-^anraka 1.115. However, in PS 74, the 
meaning "(external) condition" may be more appropriate, as in logic. 
(Cf. on this. Stcherbatsky, 1930. p. 122. n. 3; p. 324, n. 2; p. 127, 
n. 1-2; etc.) Futhermore, we may quote the passage from the Mahayana 
Buddhist fiatnagotracibhaga dealing with the same theme in a strikingly 
similar fashion, viz., 13.52, which says of the Buddhas' "Body of Enjoy- 
ment" (idmbhogikakaya): "Just as a gem, being dyed with various 
colours, does not make manifest its real essence, similarly, the (All- 
Pervasive] Lord (vibhu) never shows its real nature [i.e., of the Body of 
Enjoymcntj. though it appears in various forms, according to the condi- 
tions of the living beings." (Sec Takasaki, 1966, pp. 328-9.) Compare to 
this the statement by Sarhkara in US, Padjtaprabandha, 18.122. 

It should be noted that the above RGV passage implies that the 
Buddha's Sambhogakdya has a real nature, albeit a concealed one. and 
thus has its place within a substantialist ontology of Buddhist 
philosophy. This fact may perhaps furnish us with some evidence for a 
theory according to which the PS should have among its direct 
predecessors in the history of Indian philosophy the Buddhist RGV, 
which was probably written by Asahga (under Maitreyan influence) 
around the middle of the fourth century A.D, (As to the date of RGV, 
sec Rucgg, 1969. p. 55; whereas Frauwallner, 1969. pp. 255 f. , assumes 
that Saramati was its author, who "lived nut long after Nagarjuna," 
i.e., around the middle of the third century A.D.) 

»' I.e., something which is close lo the Self and consequently deter- 
mines it from ihe outside, i.e., the body together with its organs. (Cf, 
preceding note.) The translation is in accordance with R. 

"• Whereas the text of the PS speaks of "an upddki created by the 
gunas," which themselves belong to piakjti, R. interprets this to mean 
that such an upadhi has been "made manifest by prakjtt." The interest ot 
this gloss lies in the fact that R. apparendy envisages a manifestation 
model of evolution on Samkhya lines. (Cf. Frauwallner, 1953, pp. 308, 
352, and n. 195, p. 482, with a quotation of YD, p. 67, II. 14-16.) 

" R.: "Reflected in the Inner Organ." 

M Cf. n. 46 above. 


" From this, it becomes clear thai it is only the reflection of the Self in 
the Inner Organ which moves, rather than the Self. 

60 The demon causing sun or moon eclipses. (Cf. also, e.g., on this 
phenomenon in myths: LcVi-Strauss, 1964, pp. 304-5; 1967, pp, 355-7; 
1968, p. 273; 1971. p. 274.) 

*' Like Rahu's. the Self's becoming visible is indirect and incomplete; 
ht-ncc the exhortation in the next verse. (Cf. n. 167 below.) 

" Cf. n. 35 above. 

M Or: "incomparable." 

M On aduaita ("without multiplicity"), sec Vettcr, 1978, pp. 1 12 IT. 

" Translation in accordance with the verse's word order. However, 
R. connects teUtsd ("by the mind") to buddhigatam ("present in the 
Buddhi") and gamyam ("must be understood") in such a manner that 
both the latter words would seem to be predicates of Brahman. This 
would lead to the following translation. "Thai Brahman [i.e., the own 
form of the Self] which is perceived — prcseni in the Buddhi [and for that 
reason] to be understood by the mind [i.e., by the ego concept] — must 
be known as all-pervasive," etc. (The portions within square brackets 
are explanations given by R.) That translation is backed by neither word 
order nor the probable meaning of the verse. Indeed, there is no obliga- 
turn on the part of the mind to understand Brahman betausc the latter is in- 
side it; nor is there any particular need to stress the fact that the mind has 
a eapattly to understand Brahman btraust of the same fact The reason why 
R contorted the word order may have been to show that cetas is identical 
with buddhi in the sense of the "Inner Organ." (Cf. notes 35, 46.) 

66 R. ideniifirs Buddhi with the "Great Entity" (mahar lattvam) of 
Sarhkhya. Sec Frauwallner, 1953, pp. 353, 402; n. 68 below. 

*' According to R., Manas is thr Inner Organ (antahkarana), although 
ihc verse text of PS clearly mentions three such Inner Organs. Conse- 
quently, R. has reinterpreted his text in order to have it suit later Yoga 
doctrine. (See next note; also cf. Frauwallner. 1953, pp. 369, 394, 401.) 
He may also have wanted to bring it into line with PS 14, 17-19. 

"* R. identifies this with the "Ego Entity" (aham-taUvam), on which cf. 
Frauwallner, 1953, p. 401. According to Vindhyavasin, whose thought 
evinces Yoga influence, there is only one psychic organ, viz., Manas, 
while Buddhi { - Mahal Tattnam, "Great Entity" = Mohan Alma, "Great 
Self") is "die crstc allgemeine, im rinzelnen noch unbestimmte Form, 
in der die Urmaterie in Erscheinung tritt, oder wie cs nach alter 


Ausdrucksweisc hcisst, sich enifahci (pyaklih). Sic ist blosscs Scin 
(satidmatram), wahrcnd die Urmaterie wedcr sciend noch ntchtseiend 
(nihsadasr.t) isi, und sic tsi blosscs Mcrkmal (lingamdfram), wahrcnd die 
Urmalcric noch merkmallos (aimgam) ist. (Sec Frauwallner, 1953. 
p. 4<)2.) The Ego Consciousness (ahamkam), on the other hand, "ist das 
Prinzip der Individuation. Es zahh abcr noch nicht zum psychischen 
Organismus. Psychisches Organ ist crsi das Dcnkcn (rnanah)." (lb.) 

" These arc: Pure Emily of Sound (sabdatanmdlra). of Touch (sparia- 
t.), of Form (or; Colour, iHpa-t), of Flavour (rasa't), and of Smell 
(jpndha-t.). (Cf. Frauwallncr, 1953, pp. 3+0, 345-8, 355 ft, 402, 404.) 

'° Those arc the "Five Sense Faculties of Cognition" (buddhindnya), 
and the "Five Sense Faculties of Action" {karmendriya), referred to in 
n. 35, above. (Cf. Frauwallncr, 1953, pp. 290, 293-4, 299, 311, 354-5, 
369, 391 IT., 403-4.) 

" Those arc: Space (or Ether, dkdia. or, as R. puts it, vyatnan). Wind 
{oayu). Heat (Itjai), Water (op), and Earth {prthiei or bhumi). 
(Cf. Frauwallncr, 1953, pp. 289-90. 293, 310-1, 355 ff., 404. 407.) 

" R.: "They arc "derived from Prakrit" insofar as they arc derived 
from the Unmanifest (aoyakla) through the Great Entity, etc." (Cf. notes 
I, 66. 68; Frauwallner, 1953. p. 352.) R, also refers to PS 10. 

,s R.: "Merit (dharma) and Demerit {adharma) are impressions 
{samskan, literally; conformations) of pure and impure acts (karman)." 
Cf PS 7; also see n. 22. 

" R.: "Just as the fact of being red, etc (of a nearby object (upddhi) 
does not really exist in J a crystal." Cf. PS 16. 

" R. says: "If a consideration of reality (castu) is made." He thereby 
seems to explain the word paramarihe, so as to have it mean, "according 
to the highest truth." However, since patamdrtht directly follows on tha 
("in this," R.; - dtmani, "in die Self), and since a translation by 
"according to the highest truth" would rather suggest Sanskrit 
paramdrthatafi , the translation as given here seems preferable to the one 
probably envisaged by R. Moreover, our own is also suggested by R. 's 
reference to the analogy between Merit, etc., as existing in the Self s 
reflected image in the Inner Organ, and redness, etc., as existing in the 
nearby red object's reflected image in the crystal. 

76 Because of the importance of this verse, with its implied 
illusionism, I propose to the reader that he should carefully read the 
following, rather long, commentary by R., which I have translated 


somewhat freely in order to make it belter understood by the Westerner. 
The fact should not be overlooked, however, that at least part of the 
"explanation*' Or, rather, interpretation given by R. would have been 
unthinkable without the use of later Vedantist doctrines about 
cpisicmology and ontology, which he had ready before his mind's eye. 
While this statement is also applicable to the large majority of his 
"explanations," which are nonetheless quite illuminating, both in 
respect of the PS and of his own way of thinking, it was thought ad- 
visable here to quote him somewhat more fully than elsewhere for two 
reasons: firstly, because this verse holds some "illusionistic" implica- 
tions which are more obvious than in most other verses of the PS, 
without raising, however, the hope of attributing it to any doctrine of 
later ages; and, secondly, because it is interesting to sec how R. uses 
Upantsad quotations in support of his arguments. He says: 

" 'The entire appearance of [the Self as| the world is erroneous,' 
because it is superimposed (adhyasto) on the Self, due to Ignorance 
{avidya) about it. Its falsity follows from its being undcfinablc by cither 
being or not-being; for it can neither be confirmed in accordance with 
reality, nor is there any direct experience of its unreality; and reality and 
unreality both do not apply to it. 

"Various analogies arc adopted in order to understand the non- 
establishment of the experience of a false object. And, likewise, a word 
denoting something logically impossible (vivddapada) forms the applica- 
tion, because it is seen wrongly, is different, and is devoid of essence: 
e.g., water in a mirage. 

"What, then, is 'falsity' (mtthyaloa)? We find: 'Being contradicted by 
knowledge about the reality of a substratum (adhisthdna).' Would this 
inference also confirm its own falsity, or would it not? If not, there would 
be the fallacy of visibility, etc., in itself alone; if it would, it would 
destroy itself. This much is true: like Scripture, that would only destroy 
the Self: Scripture, too, disproves the Self as well — in that the Self is 
inside multiplicity—, by disproving everything multiple (dcaila) in 
Brahman, through the words: 'There is nothing diverse here' (BU 
4.4.19). So it must be admitted that this inference has the shape of the 
argument in favour of the foregoing. 

"If it is held against this that nowhere in the world self-destruction is 
observable, fuel in a consuming fire should be pointed to, since there 
self-destruction is observable. In just the same way, if one says, 'How 


should a false objrri not make known reality?', we ask. "\\hicli teacher, 
indeed, calls a false entiiy unindicative of substantial reality?' For our 
view is thai only the Self is reality, and that he is self-luminous 

" 'How should Scriptures, which are false, make reality known?' 
What, ihen, is the use of them here? Thus, they only remove Ignorance, 
which is naturally false. But, even though they are false, such removal is 
like the (effect of the) lion one sees in his dream: as the lion seen in the 
dream, though raise, removes the false dream projection {suapna- 
prapanca), together with its causes, so Scriptures, etc., though false, 
remove the false world of multiplicity perceived when we are awake. 

"In addition, there is more obvious proof for the fact that a false ob- 
ject does indicate truth, lite reflection of a face in a mirror suggests the 
position of the real face, and a girl seen in a dream makes apparent the 
gaining of happiness; as those who know about dream lore say; "When 
one sees in his dreams a woman during the Kamytffi rites, he will know 
prosperity in these." (ChU 5.2.9.) (On those rites, cf. Caland, 1908; 
they are carried out for the fulfillment of some desire, and if one sees, in 
the course of the time which they take up, a woman in one's dream, she 
serves as a good portent.] Likewise, if one sees, e.g., Visnu during one's 
enraptured state, that is also understood by all men as instrumental to 
the vision of the truth, although it is false. Therefore, there is not any 
mistake at all in concluding to the falsity of [the world's | discursive 
development (praptmca). In the opposite case, we should be hampered by 
the inadmissible conclusion dial there can be no deliverance, because 
bondage would be real." 

The remainder of R.'s commentary on verse 22 is not quite so in- 
teresting, except perhaps where he quotes a passage of four words ("He 
who is invisible can. indeed, not be seen") which may be an approxima- 
tion (due, if it is true, no doubt to the fact that Indians mostly quote from 
memory and, consequently, without attribution) of the famous state- 
ment about the aiman in BU 3.9.26: "He is not thus, not thus; the Self, 
who is not apprehensible, cannot, indeed, be apprehended." This state- 
ment may have been in R.'s mind because it serves to bring out the truth 
that Sacred Scripture, precisely because it refrains from an attempt at 
giving a definition of ultimate reality (embodied in the dlman or brahman 
concept), is able to indicate the truth by approximation. We shall return 
to this theme in discussing R.'s explanation of PS 80. (See n. 260 


" On the analogy' of water in a mirage, sec Sarhkara, US, 
Gadyaprabandha, 109. 

" On the analogies of silver in mother-or-pearl, and of a snake in a 
rope, see ib. , 55. On that of a make, <>r a rivulet, in a rope, sec also 
CiK 2.17. (Furthermore, cf. Hacker. 1953, p. 10.) 

'"' \ disi irclri i -t itit- ims c ansmg double vision It i* <ilrrn employed as 
an analogon to metaphysical ignorance by Vcdanla authors; see, e.g., 
Sarvajnatriian, Samkftpa-Saritaka, 1.318 (translated in Vettcr, 1972, 
p. 104, with note). 

"" R. quotes SvU 6.11: "The one god | - the Self], hidden in all 
beings, all-pervasive, the .Self within all brings," 

" R.: "In the assemblies of efTccts | ■ bodies] and organs." Cf. notes 
35, 43. 

"'' Translation in ai;ir-c-inrnt with K 

"■' On the idcmificaiion of pmfa ("lump") as "body" (deha), cf. PS 
27, 61. andn. 262 ad PS 81. 

14 R. quotes BU 4.5.13: "So, truly, this entire Self, which is only a 
totality of knowledge [ptajna), is neither inside nor outside." 
Cf. Frauwallner, 1953, p. 459. n 37; Vettcr, 1978. pp. 113, 118. 

"» Cf. GK 3.5-6; and Vetter. 1978, p, 118. 

■° Maybe the use of the term buddha is due to Buddhist influence. Cf. 
GK 4.98: "Devoid of obstacles, all factors-of-existence {dharma) are, h) nanilS, in |and lini rj the beginning waked (or illuminated, 
buddha). also released (mukta); thus know the Guides [i.e., the Buddhss, 
to whom reference is made in GK 4.99-100]. " (Sec Vetter, 1978, p. 98.) 

"' Cf. GK 4. 10: "All factors-of-existence are by their own nature free 
from old age and death; those who believe in old age and death are 
destroyed on account of that belief." (See Vettcr, 1978, p. 101) 

*■ R. quotes MuU 2.2.11 (not 10, as the AGM text edition reads): 
"Everything shines in accordance with that shining [Brahman] alone." 
Sarhkara glosses "thai" by "Brahman,." however, in the context of PS 25 
we might as well put in "Atman." 

*" R.: "I.e., separate from the body, which is unspiritual because of 
its visibility, like ajar, etc." 

*° Kha, i.e.. akdia. R. quotes BU 2.4.14: "Truly, my Lady, it is 
[only] this [body) which suffices to know. For, where there is, as it were, 
a double entity (dvaila) |i.e., a "lump of body and cognition." to which 
other "lumps of body and cognition" arc opposed], mere the one [Self] 


sees the other [Self]... However, where the totality of this [man, i.e., the 
"Self that is a lump of body and cognition"] has become the only Self: 
with which [organ] should he [i.e., the individual Self dissolved into the 
"Great Self") sec whom [i.e., which Self opposed to his Self ■ 
himself]?" (Translated in agreement with P. Thiemc, Upanischadrn, 
Stuttgart, 1966, p. 76, as quoted by Vetter, 1978. pp. 117-8 ) 

R. further quotes ChU 6.8.7: "Thou an that \dlman\" (lot team asi). 
That "thou" (fwim) is subject, and "that" (Cat) predicate, is pointed out 
by, among others, Suneivara in his Noiskarmyasiddhi , 3.25. (Cf. Hacker, 
1950, p. 75.) 

R. finally quotes BU 1.4.10: "I am Brahman " 

" This translation ol Sanskrit eva by "[MM and] same" is suggested 
by R., and indeed quite plausible. 

" Idem. 

n R. quotes ChU 6, 1.4: "Just as, my dear |Svetakctu|, through one 
lump of clay all that is made of clay should be known: the modification 
(vikdra) [i.e., the "effect"], which is a [mere) name, and which has its 
"origin" in speech (uaidrambhana}, is (actually only) clay; this alone is 
the truth." Both Samkhya and Vedama have derived much of their on- 
tology, and, consequently, ol their soteriology, from statements like this 
one, teaching an early Salkdryavada, i.e., the doctrine according to which 
an effect (kdrya) is true {sat) only insofar as it is identical with its cause 
(kdrana). (Cf. &amkara, BSBh 2.1.14; and the Introduction, above.) 

*• The addition within square brackets is on the authority of R. 

*' R. quotes BU 3,9.28.7: "Brahman is knowledge (ci/iiana) and WtM 

" R. quotes BU 3.7.3: "He who, staying inside the earth, is different 
from the earth, whom the earth does not know, whose body is the earth, 
who controls the earth whilst inside, he is thy Self, the Inner Controller, 
who is immortal." See also MaU 1.6, and BS 1.2.18-20. 

" R. construes antaryamtn and prima into a (dualistic) pair ol cosmic- 
psychic principles, so that the former becomes the "immortal Self," and 
the latter the principle of individuation, viz., the "soul naturr ol that 
[Self], reflected in the inert \Prakrii\, which has its own Magic (mayo) for 
its power (sakli)," etc. These are, then, to be the two distinct states of 
knowledge (ajnana), compared to the "two birds, who arc companions, 
on a branch," of SvU 4.6. The image here employed is very ancient. It 
is found already in RS 1 . 164.20. where the two birds are sitting on either 


side of the World Tree (which is the equivalent of the Primeval Hill, or 
Cosmic Mountain), one bird eating "the sweet berry," which is ap- 
parently identical with "the share of [the beverage of] life" (amrtasya 
bhdgdm), as well as with the mddhu mentioned in the next stanzas; while 
the other bird looks on without eating. (Cf. RS 10.85.18-19; on this im- 
portant subject, see the pioneering study by Kuiper, £970. pp, J 26-7, 
and Eliade, 1964, p. 480, n. 68.) 

Finally, note thai, while here mention is made of only one Breath 
(frrdita), there are five such Breaths in the expression "the Eightfold One 
in the City" quoted by R, arfPS 15 (seen. 53 above), and seven in MuU 

"* R.: "I.e., the Brahma Egg. stretching for 500 million Yojanas." A 
Yojana is a stage at either 4.5 or 9 statute miles. (Cf. PS 10.) 

«"» Sec n. 83. 

100 R,: "The species of gods, men, walking animals, birds, creeping 
animals, and the flora (itfidvara, literally: "what is fixed")." 

'• According to Bhartrprapanca (quoted by Hiriyanna, 1924/1957, 
pp. 82 IT.), there are eight states (avastha, as they arc also called in PS 27) 
of Brahman, viz.. (1) anlarydmin; (2) sdkfin ("witness"); (3) avyakrta 
("undeveloped"); (4) suira ("strand," hence also: "rule"); (5) vitaj; (6) 
devali ("godhead"); (7) jaft' ("species, genus"); (8) pinfa. 

IOT Which is really only one; R. quotes ChU 6,2.1: "Being only this 
was in the beginning, one, without a second." The problem here, which 
R. clearly perceives (as indeed do all Vedantists), is that, if the distinc- 
tions imputed to the Self are unreal, the Vedic injunctions toward 
sacrificial rites, connecting a specific rite to a specific effect, would bfl 
useless in the ultimate effect. (Cf. Samkara, BSBh 2.1.14.) R. touches 
on this problem only very briefly, with the words: "iNo one enjoys a bath 
in the water of a mirage." That is a way of abbreviating the argument 
put by Samkara (i.e. ) in the following terms: 

"But, how can die Vcdanta [ - L'panifad\ texts, if | ultimately) untrue, 
convey information about the true being of Brahman? We certainly do 
not observe thai a man bitten by a snake [falsely imagined] in a rope 
dies, nor is the water appearing in a mirage used for drinking or 
bathing. — This objection, we reply, is without force, [because, as a 
matter of fact, wc do see real effects to result from unreal causes |, for we 
observe that death sometimes takes place from imaginary venom [when 
a man imagines himself to have been bitten by a venomous snake], and 


effects [of what is perceived in a dream], such as the bite of a snake, or 
bathing in a river, take place with regard to a dreaming person." 
Samkiira concludes his argument in favour of what we might call a 
"pious fraud" by pointing to the devotional use of regarding Brahman as 
finite and subject to causation: "The view of Brahman as undergoing 
modifications will, moreover, be of use in the devout meditations 
{updsana) on the qualified (saguna) Brahman." (My translation closely 
follows that ofThihaut, 1904, Vol. I; also cp. BSBh 1.2.14.) Cf. n. 76 

1M Cf. PS 22, and preceding note. R. again refers to "the errors of 
water in a mirage, and silver in mother-of-pearl," 

m R. briefly recapitulates the argument set out in n. 76. 

'*■ Cf. Velter. 1978. pp. l!2-30("Zur Bcdcutung von (A)Dvaita"). 

106 R. interprets this in a sense which is obviously due to influence 
from later Advaita-Vedanta writers. According to him, "Avidya has only 
arisen out of ignorance {ajnana) about the Self (a/man) |being| without a 
second (adoittya); but. even so, it is also the efficient cause (kartri) of 
effects {karya)," i.e., of the phenomenal world. On (he epistemological 
and ontological meanings of words for "ignorance" in Vedanta 
philosophy, see the Introduction. 

In his commentary on verse 29, R. identifies Avidya with Ptakjti 
("Primordial Matter"), Maya ("Magic. Illusion"), Pradhdnam ("That 
which is principal," i.e.. hakjti), Akfanm ("The Indestructible," 
another, but less common equivalent of Ptakrti). and Sunyam ("The 
Void"), respectively. 

"» On this term, see Prauwallner, 195.3. pp, 326-7; Vetter. 1972. 
pp. 104-5 («f 1.318). 

'" R.: "Viz., the body, etc." 

109 R.: "Secondarily (though not realty) characterized (upalakjita) by 
[this] 'error,* and for this reason alone 'deluded,' i.e., devoid of a desire 
to know die truth about (their] Self." 

110 On the identity between Vasudcva and Visnu, sec Gonda, 1960, 
pp. 243-4, 237; Held. 1935. p. 165. (Cf. n. 227 below.) 

1,1 R. adds a short gloss on avidya (perhaps meant to explain bhrnnti, 
"error," which does occur in this verse), regarding which sec n. 106. 

111 Himself = his Self (eUmari); Sanskrit dtrnan doubles as a substantive 
noun ("the Self), and a reflexive pronoun ('"himself"). 

" J Cf. GK 2.19-28. on which see Vetter. 1978. p. 124. 


"* R. here identifies prana and aniajyamin with each other, in contrast 
to his gloss on PS 27. (Cf. n. 97.) 

"» Jala ("net"), i.e., maja. (Cf. n. 18.) 

1,1 R.: "By his power (sakti) of autonomy, i.e., mayd." 

"' R. refers to BS 2.1.33: "Bui [Brahman's creative activity) is mere 
play, such as we see in ordinary life (loka, literally: "the world")." 

"■ Tutya - turiya. whirh R. explains as "the natural {nija) place of the 
Lord," See MaU 1.12 on the "Fourth State" (talurlha) of the Self 
{alman) - Btahmcin - the sacred syllable "~Om" (pranava), which is said 
to have four "feet," i.e., one which exceeds, and transcends, the three 
"morac" or "phonemes" (malra, viz.. A, U, M) of which it is tradi- 
tionally supposed to consist, together with these three. GK 1.10 calls the 
"Fourih Stale" turya, as docs PS 31, and identifies it with "the Lord" 
(isana), as docs R. (probably influenced by GK 1.10), Cp. CK 1.18: 
"Let one know the pranava as the Lord (iieaia) of everything, who stays 
in the heart." 

"• "Alike" attempts to translate rva. 

1,0 For a "First State" to be characterized by being awake must be 
due to influence from MaU 1.3, for such is the doctrine of the latter 
%-ersc, while GK 1 . 14a lets it !>e characterized by dream sleep as much as 
is the Second State. 

"' For the "Second Stale" lo Ik- characterized by dream sleep is due 
to both MaU 1.4 and GK 1.14. 

'" Deep sleep as characteristic of the "Third State" is due to MiiU 
1.5. to which GK 1.14 forms an approximation by calling it (under ihc 
name of I'rajna) "connected with dreamless sleep." 

'" According to GK 1.13. even Prajna, the Third State, which is 
characterized by deep sleep (cf. MaU 1.5, II). is still "joined to 
embryonic sleep (bija-mdra)." (Cf. Vettcr, 1972, p. 105. ad 1.318. on Hja 
in 2.127 as a synonym of avidya.) Consequently, GK 1.15 points to the 
difference between the three former states, characterized by dream sleep 
and dreamless sleep, and the Fourth State, characterized by neither: 
"Dream sleep is |the state) of him who perceives wrongly; dreamless 
sleep, of him who docs not know the truth; if the error of those two is 
destroyed, one reaches the Fourth State (turijtam padam)." 

•* This in agreement with GK 1.27: "For the syllable 'Om' is the 
beginning, middle, and also end of everything." 

»« I.e., "Every." This is due loGK 1.1 ff., whereas MaU 1.3 calls 


the First Slate Vaisvanara. Il must be a quotation from Gaudapada, 
because Adisesa could easily have used die common term Vathanara, 
which goes back to the Mali, as no metrical obstacles would have 
presented themselves in that case. Gaudapada, by contrast, was forced 
to use the term Vdva metn causa. It follows from this that, if Adisesa could 
have, but has not, used Vaisoanara rather than Vista, he has borrowed it 
from Gaudapada, and furthermore, thai he lived at a later date than 
Gaudapada (as was pointed out in the Introduction). 

"• I.e., "Fiery." This is due to GK 1.1 ff., which form an explana- 
tion of MaU 1.4. 

1,7 I.e., "Knowing." This is due to GK 1.1 ff.. which form an 
explanation of MaU 1.5. 

'" On this verse as a whole, see the Introduction, and Vettcr, 1978, 
pp, 97, 127-8. R. synthesizes arguments from MaU/GK (on the four 
states of the ainuim brahman! pianaia). and BS (on the illusory nature ot the 
manifestation of God/brahman), in order to answer the following ques- 
tion: "If the Lord is one, how can there be different slates in him: 1 " He 
says (p. 42): "The Fourth State (turya) is the proper condition (avasthdna 
samaya) of the Self in the form of mere Being (sal). Bliss (ananda), and 
Thought (at), after it has discarded its own Ignorance (avtdya) through 
complete knowledge (samsid) of itself. This will also be the state of each 
individual Subject of Cognition {firamdtr), since it has the form of Self- 
experience [atmanubhnva), and since il is intrinsic to all." 

110 R.: "The Lord (bhagauai), who is the Self (dtman), which is self- 
luminous thought (seapraAasa-ctt)." 

1,0 Cf. n. 112 above. 

m Maya means cither Power of Magic, or that power's product. On 
the problems involved in these two meanings, see the Introduction, 
p. 6. 

<" Cf. n. 105. 

'" Two interpretations arc possible: either, with R., "God (finally) 
perceives himself as the individual soul (fiuntsa) - the Supreme Self 
{paramatman);" or, against R., "God fails to perceive himself as more 
than the individual soul, due to his own magic." The context makes the 
latter alternative the more plausible one. 

u* Guhdgata; seen. 4 above. Cf. KajhaU 1.14-19; TA 10.10.1; MNU 
8.3; £vU 320; ChU 7.3.3; RS 1.24.12, 7.33.9, 10.129.4. 177.1; etc. On 
those texts, see Kuiper, 1964, pp. 124-5; 1970, passim, 1975, passim; 


these articles have fundamentally changed our views on ihc key concepts 
of Indian religions. 

'" Doaita; see n. 105. 

IJS Vyavahara- ttha, literally: "staying in vyavahara." R. takes vyavahara 
as God's mode of existing in ordinary life, i.e., inside the phenomenal 
world, and therefore explains the compound vyavahdrastha by: "being in 
the [mode of] existence of the individual soul (jivabkdvam galah)." 
However. H this presents no clear contrast to the follow m^, paramdrthala h 
("according to supreme reality"), while die text obviously intends such 
a contrast by the intervening na punah, another possible interpretation 
seems preferable, viz., "as God presents himself (according) to the usual 
conception [about him}." This interpretation is. moreover, bolstered by 
R.'sown explanation of vyavahara in PS 55. (Cf. n. 179.) 

"' R. interprets those three conditions of the Inner Organ (called 
rnaruu, "mind, thought"), viz., tranquility, joy, and delusion, as being 
based on its three guna aspects, which arc tdllutka, rajasa, and tdtnasa, 
respectively. These, in their turn, represent the three gunas ("■qualities") 
of Prakrit, viz., saliva, rajas, and lamas, respectively. In classical 
Sarhkhya, as formulated by Pafkaiikha, the nunas, being qualities of 
Prakrit, attach themselves to Ego Consciousness [aharnkaia), in order to 
bring about the evolution of the world. (Cf. Frauwallner, 1953, pp. 
311-2, 354; Dasgupta, 1922, pp. 249-50.) According lo that doctrine, 
there is a threefold Inner Organ, consisting of budithi ("cognition"), 
ahamkira, and manas. (Cf. Frauwallner, pp. 366, 369. 401.) Consequent- 
ly, if we read here about manas being able to affect the three states which 
are otherwise attributed to ahamkdta. the likely conclusion is that rnaruu 
means the single Inner Organ, as taught by the Yogins and later 
Sarhkhyas. (Cf. PS 14, 17-19; notes 35 and 46. above.) 

The idea according to which God may, as it were, affect any of the 
three states due to the influence of the Qualities of Matter, may itself be 
due to influence from a text which held great authority in Yoga circles, 
viz., a portion of the so-called Moksadharma ("Doctrine of Release") in 
the MBh( 12. 194.31 -36 - 247.20-25 - 287.29-31, 25b-28a, as found in 
the Calcutta edition of 1834-39, and quoted in Frauwallner, 1953, p. 
291). It should be noted that here, as in PS 47, the soul (purusa) is called 
"field knower" (kselra-jha), and that to it are attributed the gunas 
(through manas). The passage runs as follows: "Whatever is connected 
with pleasure in the body or the mind (manas), that must be designated as 



the state of goodness (saliva). Whatever is connected with sorrow, and 
causes displeasure to ihe soul (atman), that one must consider the effect of 
passion (rajas). Whatever is connected, finally, with dumbness, has no 
distinct object, is iiot thought and recognized dearly, that one must 
regard as darkness {tamos). Joy, satisfaction, bliss, pleasure, and peace of 
mind, whether they arc accidental or derived from some cause, are the 
qualities (fiuna) of goodness. Dissatisfaction, pain, sorrow, greed, and 
impatience are to be observed as features of passion, whelhrr they are 
founded or appear as baseless. Ignorance, delusion, rashness, sleep, and 
sloth, however they occur, are qualities of darkness." Some influence 
niii-s have been exercised by Yogins conversant with these ideas upon the 
author of the PS, Adisesa, but possibly very indirectly, since the 
Moksadharma teaches a cognitive hierarchy in which manas is only the 
sixth element, preceded by five sense faculties and followed by buddhi 
and ksftrajna. 

IM R.: "Pleasure, sorrow, and delusion." (Cf. preceding note.) 
"» Cf. GK 3.4-5: "Just as the spaces (akas'a) [withinf jars, etc., if the 
jars, etc., disintegrate, dissolve completely into space (akaja), similarly, 
Ihe individual souls (jiva) (dissolve | into this Self (atman). Just as (because 
there is artually only one space), if one space (within] ajar is Tilled with 
filth, smoke, etc., not all |spaccs in all jars] arc |so] rilled, similarly. [ iF 
one individual soul is filled with joy. etc.. not all) individual souls |arc 
filled] with joy, elr, (because there is actually only one soul, viz., the 
atman, to which the affects are purely accidental]." Also sec PS 51; 
Sariikara, BSBh 2.2.24, on space - ether being a positive entity rather 
than mere absence of impediment; ib., 2.1.22. 

*"> R.: "I.e., Prakjti, transformed into that which has the nature of 
the assembly of effects ( - body| and Inner Organ." (Cf. Frauwallner, 
1958, pp. 352-3.) 

1,1 R. quotes two characteristics of the atman, as taught by BU 4.3.7: 
"It meditates and plays, as it were." (Cf. PS 75, 82, as well as the next 

147 Explanation in square brackets is in accordance with R. 
M» Idem. 
•" Idem. 

Ui R. quotes BhG 4-37: "Just as fire, [once it has becn| kindled, 
reduces pieces of firewood to ashes, O Arjuna, so does the fire of 
knowledge reduce all acts to ashes." 


146 In accordance with R. 

Hr Sanskrit apt ndma probably denotes an emphatic "also'' (i.e., api, 
strengthened by noma), as the sentence cannot be a question. To 
translate the main clause by: "How, realty, docs that act not attach to its 
author? 1 ' would be dearly contrary lo the intended sense. (Cf. Speijer, 
IB86, sections 396, and 412, Remark, on the strengthened interrogative 

, '" 1 R. quotes ChL? 4,14,3: "As water does not attach to a lotus petal. 
sn does an evil act not attach to someone who knows thus [viz., as the 
sacrificial fires had taught Satyakama]." This Upanifad passage is also 
interpreted by Samkara: BSBh 1.2.15. (CF. PS 75.) 

'*• Addition in accordance with R 

,,u I.e., oF speech, body, and mind. 

t»i u_. *'|Thc erroneous belief according to which] one is an author 
[of an action]." That belief is responsible for the fact that acts not only 
have their visible effects, but also produce results later on. 

M On the splendour of the Self, see, e.g., ChU 4. 15.4: "He [i.e., the 
J'uruia in the eye ■ the Alman], forsooth, brings splendour, for he shines 
in all worlds: in all worlds shines he who knows thus." Possibly in 
reminiscence of this sentence, R. gives as (he subject of "naturally 
splendid" in PS 42 the Purufa (punis). 

'" Translation against R. ("those acts go, i.e., dissolve, into 
Brahman") for two reasons: (1) no acts can go into Brahman, since 
that would stain Brahman; (2) word order (brahmani talltiajnanat) sug- 
gests that brahmani qualifies tattvajrumat (even though yanti, "they go," 
which must be supplied in cither case, might be regarded as put in 

154 R. specifies the Gunas as "physical bodies (kdya), [i.e.,] the 
[human | body (dtha), etc." 

133 This verse may be related to Samkara. US, Padya, 17.61: "Just as 
clarified butter, which, after one has drawn it from milk, is thrown back 
into the latter, is not in it as before, so the Spirit, [drawn] out of Buddkt, 
etc., the Embodied Soul, [drawn] out of what is untrue, will not be [in 
that] as before." {ksirai sarpir yathoddhrtya kjiptam tasmin na purvacat I 
buddhyadtr jnai lalka 'satydn na dehi purvauad bhavtt It ) 

156 Cf. n. 107 above. 

157 R.: The Soul, "proceeding, though cue off from the body, etc., aa 
if not being cut off from these." This refers to him who, though provided 



wiih the knowledge that liberates from misery, still acts, due to the 
impressions of actions committed previously. (See PS 38-44.) 

158 R. quotes BU 4.5.13: "Just as an entire lump of salt is a mere 
totality of flavour without inside or outside, so, forsooth, is this entire 
Self a mere totality of knowledge without inside or outside." Thai is a 
more abstract rendering of Yajfiavalkya's leaching to Maitrcy! in BU 
2.4.12: "As a lump of salt, cast into the water, so that one can no longer 
lake it out of that water, yet, wherever one draws from the water, it is 
saline, so, forsooth, ii is with this great, endless, boundless being which 
consists of pure knowledge." (Cf. Frauwallncr, 1953, p. 79; Vettcr, 
1978, pp. 113 fT.) Samkara, too. quotes from these passages in US, 
Gadya t 43. 

,M R. explains this verse as follows: "The limbs of the body, viz,, 
head, hands, feet, etc., arc Jin reality) only the body, they are not dif- 
ferent from the latter; yet, the body is different from them, since, other- 
wise, it could not have [them as its) limbs. The modified products of 
clay, viz., jars, dishes, drums, etc., are only clay, they arc not different 
from the latter; yet, clay is different from them, since, otherwise, it could 
not be [their) cause. In the same manner, the immobile and mobile 
world, which is not multiple— being only Brahman, which is of one 
flavour with Being. Bliss, and Thought — , appears as multiple, as dif- 
ferent from Brahman; but that is only appearance, not due to reality. 
Even so, Brahman is different from the world, since, otherwise, it could 
not be its primordial cause {mula-kdrana)." 

This reflects influence from Samkara's BSBh 2. 1 .9: ananyatvt 'pi karya- 
kdranayoh karyaxya karandlmatvam na lu karanasya karyatmatvarh: "Even 
though cause and effect are identical, the effect is the cause, but the 
cause is not the effect." (Quoted by Hacker, 1953, pp. 28-9.) 

R. ends his explanation by quoting MNU 11.1: "The all. Narayana 
| = Visnu|, God, the imperishable, the supreme place, superior to 
everything, permanent, all, Narayana, Hari |- Visnu)." 

■ so {formally, the term "field knowcr" (kfetra-jna) is given to Pumsa in 
the Mokfadharma. (See n. 137 above.) The Purufas of Sarhkhya arc, 
however, not one. but many. Hence, if PS 47a adopts a single "field 
knower," he may, in view of the context, well be identical with the one 
Alman. Furthermore, if this assumption is correct, it would be another 
instance of contamination between Sarhkhya and Vcdanta ideas in the 
PS. The question is: which type of Vedanta? 


If ihc many Purusas, or "field knowers," as they are called, are essen- 
tially identical with the one Purufa, i.e., Atman, just as the many sparks of 
a tire are essentially one fire, thai does not imply that the world is iden- 
tical with the Atman. So, once again, we may be faced with a verse which 
stands in some early tradition of Viiutadvaita- or Bhtdabktdaduaita- Vrdanta, 
i.e., that school of Vcdanta which teaches that the world is identical with 
Atmanl Brahman, even though the Atman) Brahman stays separate from the 
world . 

This view is perhaps corroborated by the relative silence of R. on this 
verse, For he may have found it difficult to explain in a spirit which was 
more familiar to him, viz., later Advaita- Vcdanta, if the PS actually 
belonged to an earlier school of thought. His discussion of it remains un- 
characteristically flat, and he ends the gloss by saying: "The meaning of 
the sentence is [to bring outj the unity of the individual soul with the 
Supreme." This is undoubtedly true, but leaves out of sight the 
problems which the verse raises. 

181 R. explains ihem as the species already encountered in n. 100 

'** R. quotes BU 2.1.20: "As sparks fly up from fire, so do those 
Selves from this Self.'* He misquotes it, however, as BU 2.1.20 really 
runs as follows; "Just as a spider may climb upward by means ol 
a thread (which it has emanated from itself through no outside cause], 
and from a fire liny sparks fly upward | which emanate from the fire 
itself through no outside cause, while clearly being themselves lire in 
naturej, in exactly the same way, from this Self {atman), all breaths 
(prdna), all worlds, all gods, all brings arise "which do not owe their 
existence to anything but the Self, and which are themselves the Self in 

The explanations between square brackets are those given by 
Sarhkara, who, in a long discussion uf BU 2.1.20. adds some more illu- 
sionistic elements. They bring out a kind of Satkaryavada modified by 
Viiisiadvaita-Vedanta, which seems to be in some sort of an agreement 
with the intention of PS 47. It must be left to speculation whether R.'s 
quoting Madhyarhdina SB is based on an optional inter- 
pretation, as in Samkara: "'All those Selves, with characteristics 
manifested through connection with Upddhis." (On Satkaryavada, sec 
n. 93; Hacker. 1953, p. 28.) 

IH Although iW ("as it were, like") occurs only once in the Sanskrit 



verse text, it should be linked to both baddha ("bound"), which precedes 
it, and dhanya-jalayak ("specific grains"), which follows it. R, says. This 
is because bondage is only apparent, and the way people are bound by 
their ignorance resembles the way certain grains are by their husks. 

■•* R. explains that the fire of knowledge, which burns the seed of 
rebirth (i.e.. the belief that our acts belong to ourselves, as wc have seen 
in PS 42), resembles the fire burning the seeds of certain grains, so that 
the latter will not sprout again. (Also cf. PS 37; US. Padya, I7,26d.) 

'»» Cf. notes 19, 137. 

|S * R. glosses this epithet by "the viewer" (draffr). viz., of the "object 
fields" (kfetta). However, according to PS 15, it is wrong to think that 
the Self "is the one who views {drajft) acts from the highest ones 
downward." Since there can be no essential difference between ■fields" 
and "acts", because the former provide the material upon which the 
latter act. wc must conclude to a certain inconsistency between PS and 
R. The latter supports his gloss by a reference to BhG 13.33: "As the 
one sun illuminates [i.e., makes visible] this whole world, so this field 
knowcr (heirin) illuminates (i.e.. makes visible) the whole object field 
(hfttm), O Bharata | - ArjunaJ!" (The explanation of "illuminates" by 
"makes visible" rests on Samkara's authority: ptakasayati - 

»•' R., in an obvious reference to PS 18, explains: "But how does 
non-luminous Ignorance arise in the luminous Self, which is the Lord? 
By way of reply it is said: 'The Self is not touched by that (Ignorance).' 
As Rahu. though visible in [the stead of] the sun. does not touch the 
latter, so Ignorance, though visible in [the stead of] the Self, does not 
touch the latter." On Rahu see n. 60. 

» M Cf. PS 22. and n. 76. 78, R. is very brier on PS 50, but seems to 
mean that, since the world is absolutely separate from the Self, there is 
neither an objective cause to the world (because the only real thing is the 
Self), nor is there any objective production or destruction of this world 
(because what does not realty exist can neither come into nor pass out ol 
being). Although R.'s first conclusion seems rather bold, it is possible 
that this verse should indicate an illusionistic kind of Advaita-Vedanta, 
which denies phenomenal existence all reality. (Cf. Srhmithau.scn, 1965, 
pp. 151-3, 237-9; Introduction, above.) 
'*» R.: "Viz.. Ignorance (avidyi), etc." 
'"■ Though R. keeps silent on this point. I have added "seemingly" 


on the analogy of PS 48, where wa is, according to him, also bivalent. 
(Cf. n. 163.) It would, indeed, be incongruous to say of the Self that it is 
"permanently free of connection to birth, etc.," as well as "always 
connected [to birth, etc.)," in one and the same verse. 

'*' Cf. n. 139. 

'" Cf. n. 42, 55. 

" 5 Cf. PS 41-42. 

"* R. identifies the body, etc.. with the "field" of PS 47. He quotes 
BhG 13.5-6: "The Great Elements, Ego Consciousness, Cognition, the 
Unmanifcst as well, the ten Sense Faculties, the One [according to 
Samkara: manas, "mind, thought"), and the five Objects of the Sense 
Faculties;. Volition, Hatred, Pleasure, Sorrow; the Aggregate {samghila) 
[Samkara: of the body and the sense faculties], Intelligence (tetana), and 
the Foundation (dhrii) [Samkara: of the body and the faculties): that, 
together with its transformations, is summarily called 'the field.' " See 
above, nn. 71, 68. 66. 29. 70. 67. respectively The five Objects of the 
Faculties are Sound (sabda), of the Cognitive Faculty of Hearing, etc. 
These were called vuesa ("special property") by early Samkhya, viz., of 
the five Great Elements, out of which they evolved, according to 
Pancas'ikha; and lanmatra ("pure entity") - aoiiifa ("non-special 
property") by later Samkhya, the Great Elements evolving out of them 
according to IsVarakrina. (Cf. Frauwallner, 1953, pp. 312, 347-8, 355, 
480, n. 171.) 

R. further quotes KajhaU 3. 10- 1 1 (not: 1.3.10-11, as our printed 
ACM edition has): "For higher than the Sense Faculties are the 
Objects, and higher than the Objects is Mind. But higher than Mind is 
Cognition, higher than Cognition is the Great Self. Higher than the 
Great One is the Unmanifcst {aoyakiam) ." In the epic tradition, as well 
as this Upanisad, the first entity to evolve from Brahman is the Great 
Entity [mahad bhutam, mahat Hainan;), sometimes called Great Self (mahan 
alma), i.e., the Embodied Soul. This is still unmanifcst (avyakla), but the 
next stage, manas, is manifest {vyakta). (Cf. Frauwallner, p. 121.) This 
doctrine is found in the "Question of inika" (SukdnupraJna): MBh 
12.231-33 Calcutta ed. However, a still older, but parallel doctrine 
taught in a fundamental verse of MDhS (1.14) does not mention a 
"Great Entity," but derives manas directly from Brahman, whereas a 
Great Self is derived from Ego Consciousness according to MDhS 1.15. 
(Cf. the commentaries quoted in Buhler's translation of "The Laws of 


Manu," 1886, p, 7; Frauwallner, 1953, p. 462, n. 60.) Ail those ancient 
doctrines do not yet teach that the Great Self and Cognition (buddki) are 
identical. Later on, Pancasikha's dualistic Sarhkhya can no longer 
assume either that the evolution products, i.e., the universe, and begin- 
ning with manas, might evolve from the Soul (i.e., a Great Self), or thai 
this Soul might do so from Prakjii (which would be required from a 
dualist, if he wanted to retain Matter as the single primordial cause of 
evolution). This means that manas can no longer evolve from a mahan 
alma, hut must do so from a prakrta entity. The latter is called buddki by 
Pancaiikha, yet for tradition's sake he continues to equate il with the 
mahan dlmd of epic tradition. 

R. here omits the final three pddas (b-d) of Ka|haU 3.1 1, which he 
quoted ad PS 1 (see n. 1 ). Possibly, he has done so in order not to have to 
admit that this Upantfad verse favours a non-duahstic interpretation 
inside the Samkhya school, against the classical Sarhkhya which he 
adopts elsewhere as the base of his explanations. 

'» Cf. PS 20. 32. 54-5. 

"• R.: "The individual soul (jive)." 

'" Addition in agreement with R. 

,7 ' R.: "Like a red ant, etc., who (happen toj be on a potter's 

"* R. here, in contrast to PS 34 (see n. 136), explains loka-vyavahara as 
that oyavahdra which is present in the world, i.e., in the aggregate of the 
effects ( - the body) and Inner Organ, and explains oyavahdra as the 
wrong notion (abhimdna) that this aggregate is the Self (Aimnn) In other 
words, the digression by which R. explains toka-vyavahara as loku-stha- 
oyavahdra is superfluous, this binominal compound meaning simply; 
' ' the wrong (but usual) conception of the world, which consists of bodies 
and inner organs, as being the Self." It is even possible thai R. should 
have meant •ttha- in the sense of "in respect of," but such a meaning is 
quite unusual, and may be rejected, 

'«"> Cf. n. 107; PS 6, 29, 45. R. explains this clause by: "When they 
have entered another body, which consists (or: has the nature) of 
ignorance (avidydmaya)," and thus links it directly to the "perplexed 
ones" being "bound to birth and death." This is why it seems justified 
to interpret the latter clause as giving the reason why those people 
"suffer when they have entered into blind darkness." 

R. quotes BU 4.4.10ab (- IsaU 9ab): "Those who abide in 


ignorance enter into Wind darkness." The second hernislych has this 
wording: "Those who lake their delight in knowledge |enter into| 
darkness even more than that, as it wen-." Satnkara addiues this as 
evidence lor his claim that the Vrdas ' teachings, being devoted entirely to 
injunctions and prohibitions, thereby disregard the meaning of the 
Upanifads. This view of the Vtdas is a common one in Mimdmsd, hence 
also in Vrddnta. which is often called I'ltara ('"Further" or "Higher") 
Mimdmsd (in contrast to Mimdmsd proper, i.e., the science of Vrtla 
exegesis, which is designated as furva. or "Former," Mimdmsd). It is 
almost needless to say that the contents of the Vtdas are much richer than 
that, as has been made clear by the patient labours ol many scholars, 
both in India and in the West, among whom Kuipor, the Dutch scholar, 
who was the first 10 see that the "pivot" of the Rg-Veda, viz., ihe myths 
expounding cosmogony, is based on mystic psychology. 

191 Samkara ad BS 2.3.14 addmrs the analogy of snow reverting to 
thai from which it has sprung and which il essentially is, in order lo 
explain his type of illusionistic Saddtyavdda . CI. above, nn. 34, 93; 
Hacker, 1953, pp. 24 IT. 

•" Cf. Samkara. BSBh 2.2.10; here, the Samkhyist holds the 
following opinion: "And if ihe Vedanlin should adduce the case of water 
with its waves, ripples, loam, etc., we remark thai there also the waves, 
etc., constitute attributes of the water which remain permanently, 
although ihcy by turns manifest themselves, and again enter into the 
siale of non-manifestation." (Cf. Frauwallncr, 1953, p. 352.) The 
Samkhyst's doctrine is a realistic Satkaryavada, while Sarhkara's is the 
same tinged with illusionism. The latter is also true of the doctrine 
expounded in PS. (See Introduction.) 

•» Cf. PS 33. 

'"* R.: "This in the following sense: 'This is the natural (rtatsatgtka) 
conception of ihe world (loka-tyavahdra), caused by erroneous knowledge, 
[that one thinks], 'This am I,' 'This is mine,' by mixing up truth (salya) 
and falsehood [anria).' " Thai sentence is found in Sarhkara's Upodghdkt 
a/BSBh 1.1.1. 

,M R.'s (summarized) argument in explaining PS 56 runs as follows: 
"Why should the Lord, Visnu |i.e.. the At man], who is inside 
everything as its Inner Controller and its Sout, create anything? For if he 
has a purpose, i.e., has to achieve something, he cannot be perfect, i.e., 
cannot be God. So why is there any creation at all, or, as a further 


question: is creation real?'" Thr answer is that Creation is a Maya, i.e., 
an illusory, but nevertheless objective creation of God, which, by its 
illusory nature, does not compromise God's perfection: "Jusi as snow, 
foam, etc., are produced from water only as | transformation, not for a 
particular purpose, and as also smoke is from fire, so does Maya, which 
consists of effects and [their] rauses. manifest itself from the Supreme 
Lord himself only, but not for any purpose, because he tannot have a 
desire for anything, as he has |all| his desires satisfied." 

R. quotes GK 1.9 in support of this; "Oration is for the sake of 
experience according to some, for the sake of amusement according to 
other*. This is die own nature of God. What (could bc| the desire of him. 
who has his desires satisfied?" 

In view of the fact that Maya here, as in PS 10, means "objective 
magic" rather than "absolutely non-existent illusion." R. appropriately 
ends his explanation of PS 56 with this remark: "In this theory, by the 
word Maya is meant the manifestation (ftravrttt) of the all-pervasive Lord 
(ciMn), which has the form at Maya and consists of the Creation (w/f) of 
everything. " On prarrtlt ("cosmic progression") as the principal 
function of Visnu in the Veda, see Kuiper, 1962, p. 1 51. 

•** This verse places slightly more emphasis on the cognitive 
semanteme of the term "mdyd" than the previous verse, which stressed 
its cosmogontcal semanteme. (Cf. Hacker, 1953. p, 27; above. Introduc- 
tion, and n. 185.) 

*" CF. n. 64. 

'" R.: "With parts" means God's appearance 'through Maya, 
which has the nature of discursive development {prapahca) into names 
and forms {nama-riipa) ." "Without pans" means his "existence in the 
form of Being {sat). Bliss {dnanda), and Thought {at)." 

'** R.: "In ajar, etc." 

IM R.: "In the ocean, if thrown into the latter." 

'■' R.: "A litde bit of milk." 

m R.: "A large amount of milk, if thrown into the latter." 

"•' R.: "Produced by a Yak-tail fan, etc." 

"" R.: "The wind outside, if the former enters into the latter." 

"* R.: "Devoid of discursive development." (Cf. n, 188.) 

,w R. quotes liaU 7: "When all beings have become the Self alone to 
hjm who knows, then, what delusion, what sorrow |can there bc| for 
him, who sees [only] unity?" This is meant as a rhetorical question. The 


verse PS 59 is in the same .shape, but for a completely correct understan- 
ding its main clause has been changed from a Sanskrit allirinative- 
interrogative into an English negative-indicative. 

'» 7 Cf. n. 55. 

m Explanation in brackets accounts for R.: "The Self adopts an 
appearance due to the Upddhn," i.e., its realization for what ii truly is 
remains impossible until it is observed without its Vpadhis. 

" v Cf. PS 16. 

*» Cf. n. 19. 

101 R. reads gupdh ("qualities"), katana-gajtafi ("assembly of 
organs"), against the text's guna-gana-katana (adopted as the base for 
translation), and explains plural katana as "sense faculties" (indnya) 
instead of the triad of buddht. ahamkaui. and manax (to which (he indnya 
might Ik- added). A reason for this somewhat unusual interpretation 
might be to avoid deciding the question of whether there is just one 
"Inner Organ" or more such organs. However, as the next verse speaks 
of a single organ (there called dhi, "thought." i.e., mnnas), wc- have 
reason to assume a single organ for this verse as well, probably tinder 
Yoga influence. (Cf. n. 35.) 

»* R : "I.e., the lump' (/»«£>)." Cf. n. 83. 

'■"" R. without further explanation identifies these with the single 
"Inner Wind" (antamaya) of the body. However, the prams commonly 
occur in the plural, being the "forces of life" in the Upanifads. (Cf. 
FrauwaJJncr, 1953. pp. 81 fT.) 

»•* Sec n. 69. 

'■"* R.: "Being a human, etc" 

■ Jao n . —phc results of pure acts." 

3oi £ . "The results of impure acts." 

iM Literally: "Having the form of the Spirit (at)-" 

•* Addition within brackets according to R.'s gloss. 

'■"" R. quotes SvU 3.19: "The Apprehender [i.e., Aiman] is swift, 
although he lacks hands and feel; he sees without eyes; hears without 

»' Sec n. 209. 

*» Seen. 201. 

1,3 See n. 209. 

114 Aisvarya, die quality of being Lord (£fa*m). 

115 I.e., the universe. 


2,8 R. quotes ChU 7.25.2: "All this is only the Self, ' * where it is 
likewise taught that "he who sees thus, etc.," becomes "autonomous" 
(suaraj). Samkara obviously regards this as "princely lordship,*' for he 
says that one is "anointed" to it and remains in that state even after the 
body's decease. 

*» Cf. PS 57; n. 188. 

2 " R. says that "Delusion 1 ' consists of the opponents" doctrines, 
which he briefly outlines, tn connection with the sentence; "All ihis is 
only the SelP' (ChU 7.25.2, as quoted in n. 216). He regards it as 
directed against all theories which try to prove that "all this" is due to 
some other principle. He therefore also quotes BS 1.1.2: "[Brahman is 
that] from which the origin, [subsistence, and dissolution] of this [world 
proceed]." TU 3.1: "Whence these beings arc born, by what, once 
born, they remain in existence, into what they return, reenter complete- 
ly, that you must investigate into, that is Brahman." BhC 10.8: "I 
[Krsna » Visrvu] am the origin of everything, from me everything 
springs." BhG 7.6.7: "I am the origin and likewise the destruction of 
the whole world; nothing else is higher than me, O Warrior [ » 
Arjunaj." BhG 9.8: "Depending on my own Primordial Matter, I again 
and again create this whole complex of beings." 

If R. claims doctrines which stale, respectively, Brahman and 
Vi$rni/K.rsna as the cause of the universe in support of ChU 7.25.2, this 
proves that the latter are identified with the Atman. 

"" R. quotes MuU 3.2.9: "[He who| knows Brahman becomes 
Brahman alone (or: becomes that same Brahman)." 

"° "At the same time" in agreement with R.'s gloss. 

**' R.: "In order to prove their theories, being blind to their 

18 R.; "Rational philosophies, such as Karma- Mimamsa, Sdrhkhya 
(either Theistic or Atheistic), Nyaya, Vaisefika; the Buddhist doctrines of 
Vacuity (Sunyavada), Merc Cognition ( Vijhanavada ■ VijnaptimalTaudda 
■ Yogdcdra), and Momentarincss (Kyanikavdaa) [i.e., the School of the 
Logicians, epitomized by Dignaga and Dharmakirti]; and the 
K$apanaka-i'dda ("Doctrine of Mendicants") [i.e., the School of the 
Digambara Jainas, "those who have the quarters of space lor their 
clothing"], and the Stabhava-vada ("Doctrine of Own Essence") (i.e., 
the School of the Svetamhara Jainas, "those who are clad in white," 
according to whom "the essence of a thing is its real existence" (sadbhdvo 


hi wahhaiah. . . dracyasya), as we read in Kundakunda, Pravacanasdra, 

On those various systems of philosophy, ihc works to consul! arc: 
Rcnou and Filliozat, 1953, chapters VII, XI, XII; Frauwailner, 1955 
and 1956; id., 1969. Potter, 1970, will also be found quite helpful. 

tU ^ . "T-hc Holy Traditions which differ from Vedanla, i.e., from 
the Upanisadic Traditions. They belong to the Saivas, Vaisnavas, 
S;ik i. is, and Sun Worshippers." On them see, e.g., Gonda, 1960 and 

134 R.: "logical Arguments, informed by the respective Philosophies 
and Holy Traditions mentioned jin two preceding notes), and intended 
to confirm the truths of these." 

MJ R. quotes in support of this whole verse GK 4.5: "Wc agree with 
ihc non-production proclaimed by those |disputants|; we do not disagree 
with them. Ye shall learn not to dispute." That refers toCK 4.3-4: "For 
only some disputants assume the production ot that which is, yet others, 
wise men, |assumc the production! of that which a not, in disputing with 
each other. Nothing arises that is, and also nothing arises that is not, 
For, in this way, the two parties, disputing with each other, proclaim 
non-production." (Cf, Vetter, 1978. p. 120.) 

Space does not permit to go into the detail of these verses, but the 
reader may consult, e.g., MMK 21.12, BGA 9.35; and on "transcen- 
dent non-production" beyond the terms of the logical catufkofi 
("tctralcrnma"), viz., production, non- product ion, both production 
and non-production, and neither production nor non-production: 
Jayatilleke, 1963, p. 350; Rucgg. 1969. pp. 384 IT. (quoting 
Prajnakaramati as stating that the first two terms of the trtralemma are 
equivalent to its full form, which may have some relevance in respect of 
GK 4.3-5); Warder, 1970, pp. 378 fi\ 

,M R. quotes BhG 4.11: "In whichever form 1 [Krsna/Visnu| am 
resorted to by people, in that form I appear to them." Cf. GK 2.29: 
"\\ liuhc-rr nature \\i/. , of the atrium, imputed to it a< c nnlirn: in 
2.19-28| one shows, that nature, then, he [i.e., the student, devotee, 
etc.] sees, to that he devotes himself; having Ix-comr that one, he, 
entered into it [translated in accordance with Sahikara], immerses 
himself entirely in it." 

"' R. : "Everyone, not only a Brahmin or wandering ascetic, may, by 
zealous and uninterrupted meditation (updsana), by bringing devotion 

notes by 

(bhakii) toward his gods and gurus, become himself Lord of everything, 
because he is Narayana." Here, in R.'s formulation, we find the process 
of meditation on the essential unity between the individual Self and 
Narayana, which forms the theme of PS 67, supplemented (though not 
replaced) by a process of "loving, devoted service" (bhakti, literally: 
''participation") to achieve the ultimate goal of becoming Narayana. 
Cf. PS 29; La Vallee Poussin. 1935, pp. 327 jT. (with interesting notes). 
On Narayana as a god who was originally different from Visnu and 
Krsna/Vasudeva, see Gonda, 1960, pp. 246-7. 

It is noteworthy that R. still knows about the special and ancient 
relationship which the devotees of Narayana maintained with the con- 
cept of Bhakli. Thus, in the Namyaniya section of the MBh (12.334-5), 
"the vision of Narayana" is taught as resulting only from "loving ser- 
vice rendered to Narayana alone" {rkdnla-hhakli). Even the term used for 
"meditation" by R., viz., upasana (or the corresponding absolutive 
indeclinable upasya which he actually uses), often denotes the "identify- 
ing meditation" by which one may come to sec the Lord in bhaktt prac- 
tice. (Cf. Gonda, I.e.) 

2J0 R. quotes ChU 7.1.3: "He who knows the Self transcends 
sorrow." Cf. MuU 3.2 9: "He who knows that supreme Brahman 
becomes Btahtnan himself; no one ignorant of Brahman will there be in his 
clan. He transcends sorrow, transcends evil; free from ignorance in his 
heart, he becomes immortal." 

3,9 R.'s interpretation: "Because he is also Supreme Kala," i.e., 
Time regarded as Death, is against syntax. 

"* Or: "Whence might something other than the Self produce itself 
|and so cause fear to him)?" These two translations are virtually 
equivalent, but the one adopted is the more plausible. 

"' R. explains "Supreme Reality" as htnifa, and its opposite as 
Prakrit, without obvious necessity, but perhaps in anticipation of the next 

M * Thus having obtained one's wish (i.e., the student's), as expressed 
in PS 7. 

»« Cf. n. 18 above. 

131 PS 70 presupposes a dualislic ontology and, consequently. 
sotcriology. R. quotes MuU 3.2.8cd: "Thus, he who knows, delivered 
from name and form, enters into the Purusa, who is higher than the 
highest." Note that the latter verse is written in archaic Tristubh metre. 


and lhat it stands in a context which teaches unity between atman and 
brahman. Cf. n. 174 above, where a quotation of KajhU 3.11 raises a 
similar problem with regard to interpretation. 

235 Translation against R.. but in agreement with preceding and 
following verses. R. quotes BU 4.4.6: "If someone who loves the Self 
has reached the Self, his breaths do not pass upward |at his death, but, 
being Brahman, he goes to Brahman]." ChU 6.14.2 (not 20, as our text 
reads): "Of this [myself who have a teacher and have been freed from 
the blindfold of Nescience], there is to be |a remaining here) only so long 
as 1 shall not be released; then [£amkara; "as I discard my body, without 
any interval'], I shall return (to the Real]." BU 4.4.7: "Just as the 
dead, discarded skin of a snake lies shrunken on an anlhcap, so lies this 

The meaning of PS 71 is: Natural things, such as the body, are "ex- 
hausted" or "destroyed" as soon as they have returned to (.in awareness 
of) what they really are, viz. . Matter, not the Ego. Thereby, Matter has, 
like certain plants, fulfilled its obligation, and may return to its primor- 
dial slate, i.e. , be destroyed. For the individual this means that, when he 
dies, not only his body but also his organs and "subtle body" (sukfma- 
iorira, on which cf. Frauwallncr, 1953, pp. 346, 365) arc "destroyed," 
and that he will not be reborn. Thai implies a more realistic Satkdryavada 
than the one proposed in BU 2. 1 .20, which R. quoted to explain PS 47. 
(Cf. n. 162 above.) 

" b R.: "I.e., the erroneous conception according to which the body, 
etc., are the Self." 

"' R.: "By ihc knowledge about the distinction between hakjti and 
Puma." (CI. PS 7; MuU 2.2.8, quoted BSBh 3.3.32.) 

3 " R.: "On such points as: "Is there a Self apart from the body?', 

"' In agreement with R. 

3,9 Id. 

•*' Cf. nn. 151, 164 above. 

3,1 R. quotes AiU 1.1: "This was the Self, one only, in the 
beginning; blinking, it sees nothing else." MuU 2.2.8: "The fetter of 
the heart is broken, all doubts are cut, and the acts are destroyed of him, 
when this (Samkara: 'omniscient, not transmigrating one'] is seen as the 

2t ' This cnnveniional translation of dhaman seems quite satisfactory 


here, especially so as it is used in a negative, unqualified sense. A lull 
discussion of the scmantism of dhaman in the Upanifads is found in: 
Gonda, 1967. pp. 78-88. 

M « Cf. n, 236. 

" ! R. quotes BU 1.4.10: "Whoever ihen awoke of the gods, he alone 
became that [brahman], and so of the sages, and so of men. " R. discusses 
and rejects the theories on the nature of deliverance {maha) of the 
Materialists (Carvdkas), Jainas {Kfapapakas), the Buddhist 
Vijnanavadins. Madhyamikas, and Logicians, the Theistic and 
Atheistic Samkhyas, the Mimamsakas, Pasupatas (i.e., worshippers of 
Siva as Paiupati, "Lord of Animals"), and Satvatas (i.e., worshippers 
of Kfsna/Vasudeva). (Cf. n. 222; on the latter two groups: Gonda, 
1960, pp. 260 and 247. respectively.) 

R. next quotes BhG 5.15cd-17 (translated in accordance with 
Sanikara's explanation): "Knowledge is veiled by ignorance, and people 
are deluded by this; but of whom (hat ignorance of the Self has been 
destroyed by knowledge, their knowledge illuminates that supreme one 
like the sun; having their cognition directed toward that \Brahman\, 
having it as their Self, as their support (or: abode), as their [highest] aim, 
they go away never to return, having had the stains removed from their 
knowledge." ChU 7.26.2: "To him, after he has polished away the 
filthy coal [covering his soul: kofaya is especially "resin exuded by a 
tree," hence S.'s gloss, odrkfodir iea, "like tree's [resin], etc."], the 
Lord, Sanatkumara [usually a son of Brahma, but here explained by S. 
as Skanda, son of Siva), shows what transcends Darkness (tonuu)." S. 
explains the addressee as "the one who is fit to do that," viz., Yoga, in 
other words the sage Narad a. 

R, ends with a digression on the Buddhist Madhyamikas' conception 
of Deliverance: "What then is this 'Cessation of Nescience' which is 
called Release (mufti)? [The Madhyamikas say:] 'In the first place, it 
cannot be existent, for in that case it would have to be permanent, like 
the Self Nor can it be inexistent, for then knowledge would be ineffec- 
tive. It cannot be both existent and inexistent, for since existence and 
inexistence cancel each other out, they cannot operate at one place 
simultaneously without contradiction. Neither can it be characterized by 
the absence of both existence and inexistence, for then it would be iden- 
tical with nescience, and existence and inexistence would be identical, 
which is a contradiction. It cannot be devoid of the four terms of the 


syllogism [i.e., of the letralemma as referred to in n. 225], because only 
something void (iunyd) could be so characterized.' That, however, can- 
not be true. For the meaning of the word 'void' is merely 'non-being,' 
which is opposed to being; and the void has no positive character, since 
the Cessation of Nescience, which is opposed to nescience, and which 
would differ from Being and Non-Being, would have five terms. Hence, 
there are four terms, viz., Being. Non-Being, Being and Non-Being, 
and that which differs from Being and Non-Being; and some term 
different from these would have to be adopted for the Cessation of 
Nescience. Moreover, the cessation of something erroneous is not 
different from a thing based on this and regarded as real, since, if the 
former is refuted, only the latter remains." 

R. has completely misrepresented the Madhyamikas' Doctrine of the 
Void (Sunyaoada). For, according to the latter, there is a "fifth term," 
which is called Vacuity {iunyata). and which transcends the four terms of 
the letralemma without negating their validity. It does so by operating 
on a transcendent {pdramdrthika) plane of thought, while leaving the 
terms of the mtufkoh to the plane of differentiating conceptualization 
(vikalpa) and discursive development (Jrrapanta), i.e., the plane of 
common usage or common speech (pyavahara). It follows from this that 
the Void does exist and have a positive character, precisely because it is 
not a real thing (vastu) which might exist, not exist, both exist and not 
exist, or neither exist nor not exist. (Sec Rucgg, 1969, pp. 380-92.) R. 
has failed to sec this because he has not made the all-important distinc- 
tion between the two planes of thought. 

«• Cf. PS 33. 

247 R. explains those contrasts as due to discursive development 
(prapdua). (Cf. n. 245 ) On upadhika, see n. 54 above. 

*» Cf. PS 53. 

M » R. quotes BS 4.1.13: "On the attainment of this [Brahman, there 
takes place] the non-clinging and the destruction of later and earlier sins; 
this being declared [by Scripture]." 

230 This image belongs to the large stock of analogies common to 
Indian systems of thought. Thus, it is found already in the ancient 
Buddhist Nikaytu {Anguttara, PTS ed., II, pp. 38-9: Samj/uUa, id., Ill, 
p. 140); "As a lotus, bom and having grown in the water, rises above 
the water without being soiled by it, so the Buddha, born and having 
grown up in the world, has triumphed over the world, and stays in it 
without being soiled." 


"' Addition in accordance with R. 

15J The Horse Sacrifice (asvanuMa, or hayamrdha as il is here called) is 
the "long of rituals" (SB; it is extremely meritorious, because 
it leads |Q the restoration of cosmic and social life from the realm ol 
death. (Cf. Gonda, I960, pp. 168 fT.) We may also sec this from such 
passages as MDhS 11.75, 83, which state that the murderer of a 
Brahmin {brahmahan) cleanses himself of all sin by a horse sacrifice. The 
latter is therefore brought into clear contrast to the "great sin" 
(mahapdtaka) mentioned in PS 77, viz., brahma-nalya, "murdering a 
Brahmin." (Cf. MDhS 9.235 - 11.55.) It tit even a mortal sin to 
execute a Brahmin lor offences he has committed; as Manu (8.380-81) 
puts it: "No greater crime is known on earth than slaying a Brahmin." 

The probable reason for this clear opposition between Aivamrdlm and 
Hmhmatiatva, to the extent that the former should alone for the latter, is 
thai both the horse in the Aivamrdha, and the Brahmin as a member of his 
caste mediate death on behalf of society by absorbing death into 
ihrmselves. Consequently, if this function can no longer be fulfilled 
satisfactorily because some Brahmin has been killed, it can only be 
restored by killing a horse. (Cf Alsdorf, 1962; Dumont. 1966, section 
65, pp, 187 IT.; "Sur 1'histoirc du vcgeWismc.") However, ihe process 
of the perpetuation of life and death in an endless cycle is no longer 
possible in the case of the ascetic, who has recognized that, in reality. 
only his Self exists. Hence, to him, AhamtMa and Btahnmhatya have IhjcIi 
become identical, and equally irrelevant. As Lingat (1967, pp. 18-9) 
writes about the Hindu concept of the "sacred world-order" (Manna): 
"Cctte morale s'adresse a I'homnir qui vit en societe. Elle repose sur la 
croyance dans la retribution des actcs et dans le mccanisme dc la 
transmigration. Quoiquc son fondement et sa sanction soient religicux, 
elle est cssentiellemeni sociale, en ce sens que. I'ordre social se confon- 
il.iiii avec 1'ordnr naturcl, 1'hommc qui obejt a ses prescriptions rcmplii 
un devoir social tout aulant qu'un devoir religieux... Le samnyasin, en 
ellet. a renonce au monde, il est affranchi des rapports qui sont la trame 
meme de la vie mondaine; pour lui, la morale de la soriete est sans 
objet." Compare with this a famous verse attested in the Buddhist 
Uddnamrgtt (29.24, 33.61-2; cf. Dhammopada 294): "Having destroyed 
his mother, father, the king, and two learned Brahmins, and having 
destroyed the kingdom and the servants, a Brahmin goes without sin." 

74- NOTES 

(Quoted by Rucgg, 1969, pp. 376-7). The difference between the "two 
learned Brahmins" and the latter Brahmin is that the former uphold the 
world order by the sacrificial services they render their patrons, while the 
latter, the '•true" Brahmin, roams about as an ascetic. 

m Cf. Abhinavagupta, PS 71, 73: "Discarding arrogance, joy, 
anger, jealousy, despondency, fear, greed, and delusion, being without 
speech or thought (matt), let him behave like a fool (Jafa), not issuing any 
laud (rtotra) or incantation (eafafkam),.. Nothing apart from him exists 
whkfa might be fit for laud or sacrifice Would he, therefore, rejoice in a 
laud, etc.. while being released, and free from salutation (namaskrti) and 
incantation (vofafka)?" Compare GK. 2.36-37: •'Then-fore, when one 
has thus recognized this [G<jd], may one turn one's attention (smrti) to 
that which (or: him who) is without multiplicity (cuivaita); having 
attained Advaiia, let him live in the world like a fool (ja(k). The ascetic 
(yatt), not issuing a laud (j/irti) or salutation (namaskam), and not issuing a 
blessing {svodhakon) cither, and without support in what is fixed or not 
fixed, may he be autonomous." (On the verse GK 2.36, cf. Vetter, 
1978. p. 125.) Furthermore, see Sprockhoff, 1976. p. 91. 

'" The expression "having done what had to be done" {krta-kftya) is 
commonly found in Buddhist scripture, where it denotes the slate of the 
saint (arhat) who has reached the knowledge thai his impure inflows are 
destroyed {dsraua-kfaya-jnana). That knowledge is the first in a series 
where "what had to be done has been done." (Cf. Vinayapitaka, I, 
pp. 14, 35, 183; Dfghanikdya, I. pp. 84. 177. 203; Majjhtmanikaya, I. 
p. 139; Samyuttanikdya, I, p. 140; A nguttaranikaya, I, p. 165; Vasubandhu, 
Abhidhamuikaia, ch. 7, v. 8. n. 6: translation La Vallee Poussin, t. V. 
pp. 13-4.) It leads in particular to Xmana at the end of this present life. 
(Cf. n. 257, below.) The term is also found in BhG 15.20 and MDhS 


3M Translation in accordance with R.'s gloss. 

"' Text reads aithinnam ittham ("thus non-plural"); but this is unlike- 
ly, as it would mean the same as outhula-ndnaivam ("free from diversity") 
at the end of the second fidda. Moreover, Abhinavagupta reads abhihtlam 
ittham ("thus revealed") in the otherwise identical verse of his PS, viz., 
82. (The metre makes no difficulty as it is based on morae.) This reading 
is the more likely, because it may refer to both the immediately 
preceding verse 79 in our PS, and the verses 67-69 in it. Between 69 and 
80, we have a duaiistic doctrine defended in 70-71, and one about jwan- 


mukti ("Release during one's lifetime") in 72 fT., to which 79 seems to 
refer in particular through the epithet of fata-kftya. (Cf. n. 255.) So what 
the qualification "thus revealed" of "the Self of everything" refers to is 
(1) the state in which the individual Self finds itself, after it has grasped 
Supreme Truth, particularly because "pervasive" (oyapinam) in 80a 
takes up "universally present" (sarvagalas) from 79d, and generally 
because it summarizes the state of the Yogin released during his lifetime 
{jivan-mukta), anticipated by krta-kriya in 79c; (2) by stating that the 
individual Self becomes one with the Supreme Self through knowledge, 
verse 67, according to which it becomes Lord of everything by recogniz- 
ing the latter as its Self; (3) verses 68-69, as the reader will easily see. 
That seems the interpretation of the word "thus." 

Nevertheless, R. understands abhmnam ("non-plural"), and quotes 
BU 1.4.10 in support of this: "He, then, who worships a certain 
godhead, thinking, 'That god is one being, I am someone else.' does not 
know the truth; thus, he is, as it were, cattle to the gods." 

,4 » R. quotes KadiU 1.3.15: "Having worshipped that which is 
without beginning or end, higher than the high, solid, which is without 
speech, touch, or colour, which is imperishable, and also a flavour both 
permanent and as if without smell, he is freed from the teeth of death." 

"» R. quotes ChU 6.2.1: "Being alone, my dear, this was in the 
beginning, one only, without a second." 

760 R. quotes BU 4.3.32 (translated here in accordance with 
£arhkara): "He knew, 'Brahman is bliss.' His is this highest bliss, the 
other beings subsist on part of just that bliss. " Cf. TU 2.4. 1 : " Knowing 
the bliss of Brahman, from which words refrain, not grasping it with the 
mind, he is never afraid." 

In this connection, let me quote one paragraph from a long digression 
in which R. discusses the meaning of the word "Brahman" in the so- 
called "Great Sentences" (mahavakyani) of the Upanifads, such as have 
been quoted in many notes on the verses of PS (e.g., tat luam asi, "Thou 
art that," ChU 6.8.7, in n. 90). R. comes to the conclusion (as is 
common among Vedanta authors, his own interpretation being inform- 
ed by that of Samkara ad ChU 6.8.7) that those sentences mean Brahman 
= Atman by a kind of approximating indication, which both abandons 
and retains some of the semantemes associated with Brahman; this is call- 
cd jahad-ajahal-laksana. It abandons everything it might denote otherwise, 
but retains the "purified" acceptation of "being mere Brahman." This 


process of jahad-ajahalAakianA is compared to the ordinary usage of the 
deictic pronoun "this" (i.e., one out of several of the language's 'signs 
used for referring without designation," as they are defined by 
Wcinrcich, 1963, p. 145), in such propositions as: '* This is person P," 
where the pronoun's intension is exhausted by its one-one cor- 
respondence to P. (On the problems involved here, sec, e.g., Gaurinath 
Sastri. 1959, pp. 281 ff.jj Smct, 1954; id., 1960; Sarvajnatman, SS, 1, 
145-249 - Vettcr, 1972, pp. 60-87.) 

R, is consequently in a position to define "bliss" as an epithet ol 
BrahmanlAlman in the following way (thereby clarifying why it is called 
"incomparable" and "supreme" by PS 80): "Similarly, bliss' is. 
according to common experience, some cognitive function produced by 
the enjoyment of objects which are procured by pure actions, and 
universally generating the achievement ofone's aims; while according to 
supreme truth it is the Inner Self. Thus, the word 'bliss' by its tileral 
application refers to a meaning specified by what preceded, as in the 
phrase, 'Brahman is discriminating knowledge and bliss.' Hence, the 
word 'bliss' indi(ates, by abandoning its intentional aspect consisting of 
cognitive function, that aspect of its meaning which consists of 'the one 
who observes this." 

«•" Cf PS 70. 

"•» R. explains: Because "the discursive development of body and 
bodily elements has been retracted into its own placr through a succes- 
sion of steps which is the reverse of creation." arid because this happen- 
ed at the moment in which correct knowledge was produced, the Yogin 
will reach "Separation" at his death. BO matter how his personal condi- 
tion or situation is at that time. (Cf. PS 10.) It is interesting that R. here 
adds the term pinja for the body, which is then reabsorbed into the 
"egg." etc. (Cf. n. 83.) 

»*•' R. raises the following problem at the end of his commentary on 
PS 82: "Even so, if, at the moment ofone's death, one has lost his 
memory, then, even if one knew the truth, one is not released, the Lord 
says in the Bh(J: 'He who passes away while proclaiming Brahman, 
which is the single syllabic Om, and recalls me, he reaches my state; 
there is no doubt as to that.' [BhG 8.13.] That [other] person, on the 
contrary, can only be degraded: 'Those who stand in Truth go upward; 
the Passionate stay in the middle; the Dark, standing in the condition of 
the lowest quality, go downward. Darkness, inertia, senselessness, and 


delusion alone come about, where Darkness predominates, O Joy of the 
Kurus { - Arjuna]!' (BhG 14.18, 13; cf. n. 19.]" Adisesa solves this 
problem with the words, "even involuntarily," in PS 83. (Also see 
n. 274.) 

lM Addition in agreement with R. 

■B Cf. PS 5, 7, 37, 41-2. 

io« p^ . "J ie . ( someone who knows the distinction berwecn Prakrit [as 
characterized by the three Guruu] and Purufa.'* 

'"•' Because, as we learned from PS 7, "Merit and Demerit | which 
result from acts, which belong themselves to Pmkfli] do not bind him who 
knows the distinction between the Qualities and the Soul." Here, as in 
PS 7, 70, etc., the tendency is dualism, which is also suggested by 
another reference to BhG 8.13 (as quoted in n. 263 above). 

JWI Cf. n. 263. Because PS 83 was quoted in Yitkudipika, which was 
written about 550 A. D., the PS must be earlier than thai. (Sec Introduc- 
tion, above.) 

w * R.: "The knowledge (bodha) which makes one immediately {sakfdl) 
aware of unity with that, viz.. Supreme Truth - Brahman," which is the 
goal of the road. 

170 In agreement with R. 

z " R.: "After he has been living in Brahma's world for fifty years of 
Brahma's life," i.e., for a hundred million million ( ■ H) 1 *) days and 

1,1 R,; "Due to the ancient impressions {samskdra, literally: 'confor- 

'" R. explains this epithet by the Yogin's having "become a 
distinguished Brahmin" then; but it is more likely that he is called thus 
because of his previous exertions at Yoga. 

" 4 On this "supreme place of Visnu." which constitutes the goal of 
the Yogin, R. quotes BhG 6.37-45: "He who has lost self-control, but is 
still endowed with devotion, one whose mind has strayed from mystic 
union, if he dues not reach the perfection of thai union, which destiny 
does he go to, O Krsna? Docs he, desisting from bodi | self-control and 
devotion to God), perish like a burst cloud, without support, deluded on 
Brahma's path, O large-armed one? Be pleased. O Krsna, to crush this 
my uncertainty without leaving anything of it! For no one but you may 
possibly crush this uncertainty. " To this plea of Arjuna the God replies; 
"O Prthu son, neither here nor in the beyond is there found to be 


destruction of such a man; for no one who has done good things goes to a 
bad destiny, my child. After having won the worlds of those who per- 
form good deeds, and having lived there for many seasons, he who has 
desisted from union is reborn in the house of pure, holy people, or even 
in the lineage of wise Yogins; for such a birth is very difficult to get in the 
world. There he gets this complete mastery of intellect which is the result 
of the former embodied existence, and he strives toward perfection even 
more. Even involuntarily, he is pushed by that mere former impression; 
even if he wants to know mystic union, he surpasses Brahman in its verbal 
state. But, striving through effort, the Yogin, cleansed of sins and 
perfected by many rebirths, goes from there to the highest destiny." 

Compare with this RS 1.22.20 (quoted in Kuipcr, 1962, p. 140): 
"The Sages (?) always sec this highest place of Visnu, which is like an 
eye hung in heaven." (tad eifpoh paramdm padam soda paiyanli liirayah I 
dtotua cdkftit atatam.) As regards the importance of that mythical "highest 
place of Visnu" for the history of Advaita-Vcdanta, see BSBh 1.2.12, 
quoting Ka|hU 1.3.9: "The passage, 'He reaches the end of his journey, 
and that is the highest place of Visnu,' represent* the highest Self as the 
goal of the driver's course." (jo [- eijnanatma rathi] 'dhvawh pdmm 
apnotf lad vifnoh paramam padam Hi ca patamdlmdnam gantmiyam kalpayati) 

Reference to a "mountain (called ] Visnupada" (i.e., Place of Visnu) is 
also made in (he laudatory inscription (ptoiasti) in three verses on the 
Iron Pillar of Mehrauli, eleven miles S. of Delhi (in front of the central 
opening to the Quwwat ul-Islam Mosque, in the Qutb Minar Enclosure, 
to be found in the middle of the E. side of the Lai Kot). On that "moun- 
tain" is stated to have been erected "the standard of Lord Visnu." We 
can now see what that means: the Iron Pillar, as the World Tree or Pillar 
(skambhd), surmounted by Visnu's standard (dhoajd), is rooted in the 
Cosmic Mountain, which, as "Visnu's place," is the highest heaven (in 
particular identified with the night sky), as well as the "heavenly 
bucket" (kds'a) containing the subterranean water or ocean. (Cf. La 
Vallec Poussin, 1935. p. 49; Kuiper, 1962. p. 150; id., 1972; id.. 1969, 
on the dhvaja as representing the cosmic axis or mountain, hence of 
Visnu as the cosmic totality.) According to legend, the Iron PiUar rested 
on a large snake (apparently Anantasesa; cf. nn. 25, 277), which was 
hidden under the surface of the earth; the Raja, Anaiiga Pala II 
Tomara, removed the pillar to sec whether the legend was true, but this 
sacrilege cost the Tomara clan their throne (to Shahab ud-Din Ghori, in 


"* R. explains this as either "existing in the middle of the sun disk," 
or "having the form of the self-luminous Spirit {ivaptakaia-cit)." He 
quotes BhG 15.12: "The heal which inheres in the sun and illuminates 
the whole earth, and that which is in the moon, and that which is in the 
fire; know that this is my heat!" 

"* R.: "I.e., the multitude of sentences to illuminate the intended 
meaning, which cannot be understood through direct perception 
(pratyakja), inference {anumana), etc." He quotes BS 3,3.1: "[The 
cognitions! intimated by all the Vtdanla texts (arc identical] on account 
of the non-difference of injunction, etc." (Cf. n. 12 above.) 

1,7 R. explains Scsa as being "not an ordinary sage, but Ananta," 
i.e., Ananta-, Naga-, or Adi-Sesa, the thousand- headed serpent which 
forms the couch of Visnu during the intervals between the world 
creations, and thereby becomes "the support of the worlds." (Cf. 
nn. 25, 274). In other words, the human author of the PS was identified 
with Visnu 's cosmic support. (Cf. Gonda, 1960, p. 317.) 


Alsdorf. L 1962. Untrue,/ zur Uftchuhtt pen Vegetantmui and Rindervmhrung in 

IndUn. Akad. d. Wiss. u. Lit.. Geistes- u. Sozialwiss. KM., Jg. 1961. Nr. 6. 

Main?.: Verlag der AWL; Wiesbaden: Steincr. 
Calaiid. W. 1908. Altindiicht Zaubfti Dantellung dn m ■"Wun.uhopfet." Verh. 

d. Kon. Akad. v. Wet . AW. LflB., NR., X, ! Amsterdam: Noord- 

Corbin, H 1964. Htsiett/ it Us phxtosophu hlamique. I Da mi firm jusqit a la mart 

d'Atmroii (1198). Paris: Gallimard. 
Dasgupia. S. 1922. A History of Indian Philosophy, Vol I Cambridge: Cambridge 

University Press. 
Dumont. L. 1966. Homo hutarthmu: /itai sv U system* dts cuter, Paris: Galtf- 


EliMfe. M. 1964. Shamanum; Archaic Tuhnvpui of Entasy. New York: Bollingen; 
London: Routledgc and Kegan Paul. 

Frauwallncr. E 1953-56 Gtschichlt dn induchen Phiksephie Two volumes. 
Salzburg: Mullcr. 

. 1969. Dir Phibsophu da Baddhiymus. Berlin: Akademic-Verlag 

Gaunnaih Sastri. 1959 The Philoiophy of Word and Meaning: Some Indian Approaches 
with Speaal Reference to Ihr Philosophy of Rhartrhart. Calcutta; Sanskrit College. 

Gonda.J. 1960-63 Dk Religwnen Indteru, III. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. 

. 1967. The Meaning of ihr Sanskrit Term Dhiman. Verh d Kon Nedcrl. 

Akad, v. Wet., Aid. Lett., N.R.. Dec I LXXIII, No. 2. Amsterdam: North- 

Hacker, P. 1950. Unteruuhungrr, uber Ttxle del frihtn AdMlfanirla I. Dk Sthuler 
Sankaras. Akad d. Wiss. u. Lit.. Gotten- u. Sosialwisi. Kl. Jg. 1990, Nr 
26- Mainz: Vertag der AWL; Wiesbaden: Steincr. 

. 1953. Pioartfl Stsidin ate G/sihichte atr lltuiunitlischen Koimologie and Er- 

kemtntstheone der Indtr. Id.. Jg. 1953. Nr. 5. lb. 

Held, G. 1935. The Mahabhirata An Ethnnloj-ual Study. Amsterdam Holland, 
London: Kegan Paul, Trench. Trubncr 

Hiriyanna. M 1924. "Bhartrprapanca An Old Vedantin." Indian Antiquary, 
53, pp. 77-86- Reprinted in: Indian Philosophical Studies. I (Mysore, 1957), 
Cp. by the same "Fragments of Bhartrprapanca," Proe All-India Oriental 
Con) '.. 3(1924), 439-50. 

Jayatilleke. J. 1963. Early Buddhist Thtmy of KnowUdgt. London: Alien and 

Kuiper, F. 1950. An A ustn>- Astatic Myth m the Rtgmk. Mededel. d. Kon. Nederl 
Akad. v. Wet.. AW- Lett., N.R., Dcel 13. No. 7. Amsterdam: North- 


, 1960. "Th«- Ancient Aryan Verbal Contest.* 1 tndii- Iranian Journal, 4, 217- 

— — , 1962. "The Three Strides of Visnu." Indologital Studus m Honor of W. 

Norman Brown. New Haven, Conn.: American Oriental Society. Pp. 137- 


. 1964, "The Bliss of Ala." lnao-lr. Jl., 8, 96-129. 

. 1969. Review in tndo-Ji Jl. . II, 153-7, at: J. Duchesne-Guillemin, Symbols 

and Values m Zoraasirianum (New York, 1966). 
. 1970. "Cosmogony and Conception: A Query." History of Religions, 10, 

. 1971 Review in Imb-h.Jl, 13, 279-86. oi: H--P- Schmidt. lirUipan and 

lain (Wiesbaden. 1968). 
— — . 1972. "The Heavenly Bucket" India Maiai J Gonaa Cangral Vat Leiden: 

Brill. Pp. 144-56. 
— — . 1975. "The Basic Concept of Vcdic Religion " History of Religions, 15, 

. 1979. Vaiuna and Viduntka. On the Ongta of the Sanskrit Drama. Vcrh. d. 

Kon. Nederl. Akad. v. Wei.. Aid. Lett., N.K., Duel 100. Amsterdam, 

Oxford » New York: North- Holland. 
Ijt Vallee Poussin, L. de. 1935. Ihnastm el Huleirr dr I'lndr depuii Kanishka 

jusqu aux invasions mmulmants. Paris: De Boccard. 
Levi .Strauss, C. 1964-71. Mylholi/giquei . Four volumes. Paris: Plon. 
Lingai, R. 1967. I^is simirrs da droit dans le system* traditionntl de I'Jnde. Paris and 

The Hague: Mouton. 
Poller, K 1970 Bibliography uf Indian Philosophy. The Encyclopedia of Indian 

Philosophies. Vol I Delhi, P.iin.i, Vara nasi: Hanariidaw, 
Przywara, E. 1962 Analogta Lntis: Mttaphyuk. Einsiedeln (Switzerland): 

Renou, L. 1968. Grammaitr sanscrit*. Paris: Maisonncuvc. 
and Hillic/iii. J, 1953. I. J rid/ Classique Manuel its eludes indienrus, tome II. 

Paris: Itnprimerir Nationalr; Hanoi: Ecole Frangaise d'Exlreme-Orient, 
Rucgg. D. 1969. La throne du Tathagatagathka el du Gotta- etudet tut la i/n/riolagie et la 
gnosrologu du Bouddhtsme. Publ. de I 'Ecole Franchise d'Exir.-Or.. Vol. 

LXX. Paris: E.F.E. O 
Ruping, K. 1977. Studien zur Fruhgeuhuhu dtt Veddnta-Phtlosophte, J'etl t: Philoto- 

gueht L'ntrrtuikungen :u den Brahmasulia-Kommenlartn del Sankara und dts Bhdi- 

kata. All- u Neu-lnd. Sludien. hg. v Sent f. Kultur u. Gcsch. Indicns 

a. d. U. Hamburg. 17 Wiesbaden: Steiner. 
Schmithauscn, L. 1965. Mandanamista '< Vibhtamauiaekah mil etner Studie zur 

Enlwieklung drt tndisihm Intumslrhrt. Oeslcrreichischc Akad. d. Wias. . Phi- 

los.-hist. KL, Sitzungsber.. 247. Band. I. Abh. Vienna: Bohlaus. 


Smet, R. de. 1954. "The Theological Method of Sahkara " Renue Philataphiifue de 

Louvam, 52, 31-74. 
I960. "Language and Philosophy in India." Proc. XI I Int'l Congress of 

Philosophy. Firenzc (Florence). Pp. 47-54. 
Spcijer, J. 1886. Sanskrit Syntax. Leiden Brill. 
SprockhufT, J, J 976. Samnfdsa Quellenstudien sur Asktse tm Htnduiimws, I. Unlet- 

luthungm uber die Samnyasa-Upamiads. Abh. f. d. Kundr d. Morgrnlandes. 

XL1I, 1. Wiesbaden: Sterner. 
Sicherbalnky, Th. 1930. Buddhui Logic. Vol II Bibl. Buddhica, Vol. XXVI, 

I '..i i II. Leningrad: AN SSSR. 
i akasaki, J. 1966 A Study an the Rntnagnlravibhaga (Vttaralantra), Being a Treatise on 

ikr Talhugatagatbha Tkivry of Mahayina Buddhism. Scric Onemalr Roma. Vol 

XXXIII. Rome; Is!. Ilffl. per it Medio ed Emrrrno Orirntr. 
Thlbaut, C. 1904. The Vtdanla-Suliai with the Commentary by Sankatacarya. Two 

volume*. Sacred Book* of the East, Vols. XXXIV and XXXVIII Oxford: 

Oxford University Press 
Vclier, T. 1972. Satvajnilman 't Samkirpaiari'akom, I Kapitel Einfuhwng, Uber- 

letsung und Anmerkungm. Oesterreichischc Akad. d. Wiss.. Phibs.-hist Kl , 

Siizungsber., 282. Band. 'i. Abh. Vienna: Bohlaus. 
. 1978. "Die Gauuapadiya Zur Entsiehung und zur Bcdcutung 

von (A)Dvaiia," Wiener Zeiluhrifi fir die Kundr Sudatiens, 22, 95- 131 
Warder, A. 1970. Indian Buddhism. Delhi. Patna, Varanasi: Banarsidass. 
Wcinrcich, U. 1963. "On the Semantic Siruciure of Language." J. Grccnbcrg, 

ed. Universais of Language. Cambridge. Mass.; MIT Press Pp. 142-216. 


in the order of ihe Sanskrit Negari script 49, 63, 87 
agadhamaii 78 
ace (ana \2 

.11 cl. iv 1 I 

ajnanagranthi 72, 73 
anda ") 
aclpiya 18 
advaita 19, 46, 57 

:icIIiimIi.'iI[ II 
.nlliii.liin.i 12 

anatman 24, 29 

unadi 1 

umibhu- 5 

anrta 69 

aniabkaraiw 1 7 

antaryamin 27 

andha 55. 63 

andhakara 6, 29 

aparamr; |a 35, 61 

apunya 82 

abhinna 80 

abhiman- 15 

abhimana 14 

amaia 16, 25 

amrta 86 

avayava 46 

avastha 26. 27 

avidya 28, 49. 55 

avyakta 10 

aSubha 5, 52 

asarhga 74 

asatya 9, 74 

aham 24.37,41,63 

aharhkara 14. 20 

akasa 51. 63 

agama 65 

atmata 29 

atman 2, 13. 15. 17. 18. 25, 27. 30. 

32, 44. 49, 51. 64. 65. 67. 68, 70, 

adi 31 

adhara 8. 49, 87 
arya 87 
airama 21 
indriya 20, 37. 62 
if- 83 
i->v.n i 34 
u Hi i in. i 15 

uipanna 38 
udaka 22 
uptfcbh- 19, 32, 79 
upadhi 16, 23, 52, 60 
upadhika 74 
upcndra 9 
pa 4 

cka 1.23,36,41,47,63 
aifvarya 63 
karana It, 12. 53.61 
kanr 15, 37, 40, 4], 62 
karraan 5, 6. II, 13, 15, 37, 38, 39, 

40. 41, 42,43, 52, 75 
kalpana 21,70 
karana 50 
kila 86 
knakrtya 79 
kevalibhu- 70,83 
kaivalya 81 
kopa 78 
koiakara 6 
krama 10 
krid 30 
kjaya 38, 69 
ksiti 83 
kseirajria 47 
kha 24,25 


gaganaiala 35 

tr- 68 

gapa I ] , 20. 61 

taijasa 3 1 

gatagata 5 

laiminka 22 

gamana 73 

dinakara 17, 23 

gamanagarna 51 

divya 86 

garbhagrha 3 

duhkha 14.21.52,61 

gahana 6. 8, 45, 


drs'yaia 18 

gu$* 6, 7, II, 16. 37, 

44, 45. 48. 

deva 32.85 

49, 53,61, 83 

deha 12.24, 


guru 3 


guha 1,32 

dehin 11,62 

gocara 53 

a.. f .i 48 

grahilr 62 

dranr 15. 62 

ghafa 24, 36, 51 

dvandva 74 

ghataka 69 

dvaiia 28. 32, 33. 46, 57, 59 

ghralr 62 

dhannadharma 7, 21 

candra 22 

dhaman 73 

cit 12, 60, 61 

dhi 62 

i iiii.-iiii.irn 66 

dhiima 33. 35. 36. 56 

cctana 25, 44 

nara 29. 83 

cc«a» 19 

naraka 21 

rail any a 14, 49 

nas- 71 

chad- 31 

nanalva 80 

jagai 3, 9, 18, 22 



nanavidha 16 

jaiigamu 46 

narayana 67 

jada 78 

naia 42, 79 

janman 3, 39, 42, 

48. SI. 

54. 72. 79 

rnk.H.i 12 

|.!l .1111.11 .11:. 1 3, 25, 


mkhilii 2. 22 

jagrat 3 1 

mdhana 21.31,82 

jili 27 

infjv.1 82 

jaU 6. 30. 70 

nirupama 19. 80 

jtva 6, 13, 36 

rurmala 60 

jfli> 37.67 

nirmukla 75 

jiiana 39, 40. 48, 


niykalasakala 64 

|v,il,in.i 33 

pada 86 

tanva 43 

para 1, 35 

lanmatra 20, 61 

p.ii.iiii.ttiii.iii 23, 26, 72 

lamas 42. 45. 55 

paramananda 80 

tarana 4 

pararoanha 21, 34, 77, 79 

tarka 65 

paratnarthalaltva 69 

lirtha 81, 82 

paramanhacnarga 84 

lurya 31 

pararnanhasaxa 9, 87 



paramesvara 64 

paruja 78 

papa 77 

pinda 24, 27 

punya 77, 82 

puru?a 7, 14. 32. 35. 45, 53. 70. 

75. 83 
puj- 85 

prthakkfUi 44 

prakai- 1 8 

prakfii 1.7, 

pi.ii.i 10 

prtibhavafina-ia 50 
prabha 60 
[ 67 

|ii.iv|lli 10 

praiama 70 

prakfia 20 

prajiia 31 

prSna 27. 30, bl 

phala 5, 42, 52. 79 

I j. ii Idl 1. 1 6 

badh- 37, 48. 53. 87 

bundha 24. 12 

Ii.iii.IIi.iI. i 7 

bandhana b. 69 

bimba 17. 18 

blja 39, 42, 72 

buddha 25.41 

buddh. 18, 19.20, 24, 78 

budh- 42, 74, 75 

bodhua 14 

I in. 1 1. ■-■., 19 

brahniaghaia 77 

brahman 19, 24, 43, 57, 58, 59 

b rahma 1 

bhagaval 4, 8, 66 

bhava 28, 68, 78 

bhava 2 

bha-/vibha- 23, 25, 35, 42, 4b, 53, 

bhava 16, 53, 66 

bhavani 14, 58. 59 

bhavay- 57, 64 

bhaviia 16 

bhi- 68 

bhujarhga 22, 28. 50 

bhuvana 85 

bhuia 20 

bhcda 26. 30. 73 

Mi. .ku 15 

bhoga 37. 38, 54. 74, 84 

bhogin 84 

h Jit, .in- 1 2. 54 

bhrama SI, 57 

bhriintsi 22 

bhrami 28, 29 

bhramaka 12 

maiaara 78 

inada 78 

niailhvj 31 

manas 14. 20. 34 
mama 37 
marana 68 
mala 36, 51 

ni.iiimki 35 

II .1. Ill .1 V.! 4 1 

manuiya 8b 

.naya 10. II. 32. 33, 45. 53, 56, 

57. 74 
mukla 81 
mudha/nammudha 14. 29, 34, 54, 


I II ill. I j > I -ik. Ml 9 

mrgaiffna 22 
mrgatr>pjka 2 
iniuii 68 
mfd 46 

mru 2 
mokja 69, 73 
moha 6, 59. 64 
mohay- 32 

y.idu'«l.-uii 79 

yoga 52. 63. 84. 85. 86 



rajaia 22 

rajju 22, 28. 50 

ram- 2 

ravi 1 3 

i.i>.i\ it 62 

raga 65 

i iiiii 85 

rahu 18 

rupa 22, 26, 74 

loka 2, 13, 55 

loha 12, 47 

i .ii ll> v.i 69 

•. .iin.i 16, 21 

vajotkara 78 

valini 48. 56 

vlic 41 , 78 

vasudcva 29 

vikalpa 28, 57 

vikalpana 25 

vikara 35. 46 

vikrti 26 

vicar- 78 

vijfla- 70 

vijnana 27 

vidvai 8, 6ft 

viprayoga i 

vibhakia 75 

vibhaga 54 

vibhagajfia 7 

vibhu 16 

vibhuii 29, 30 

vimaJa 15,58,61,77 

vimuc- 76 

vimurcchita 14 

viyukm 64 

viraddcha 27 

vifcja 27 

vifva 31 

vijada 78 

vijnu 1, 33, 56. 74, 86 

visiara 33 

vrkja 83 

vrddhi 69 

vcda 4 

v,ril.inl.i>.i.stl.t 87 

vyavahara 27, 34, 55 

vvapin 25, 61 , 80 

vyapla 63 

ia rana I 

iarira 38, 61 

i&tm 18 

s.,,,1.1 25, 34, 74. 76 

fifya 3, 8, 19 

iukia 22 

foe 68 

iuddh* 25 

iubha 5. 52. 72 

fcja 36, 87 

foka 59, 81 

«rotr 62 

ivapara 81, 82 

iakalanijkala 57 

laihgama 48 

« .li rt .in.i 1 1 

*arya 9, 28 

umbandha 5, 51 

samuha 12. 59 

sarga 10, 20. 67 

*arpa 28 

wrva 67 

tarvoga 15 

wirvagaia 18, 19, 49. 67. 79 

sarvacaracaraulia 1 

sarvajna 67 

sarvakara 66 

«arva!aya 1 

sarvcivara 67 

salila 17. 23. 58, 75 

saiiivuan- 30 

saviti 13. 42 

saihsaya 4 

sarhsayagana 72 

sarhsarga 52 

sarhsara 4. 5, 20, 24, 53, 75 



•..HUM ■ 6 

wriihr- 10, 30 
sadhana 84 
farvabhauma 85 
siddhanta 65 
sukha 14.21.52,61 
suntloka 84 
sufupta 3 1 
snii 33, 49 
saindhava 45 

■mm 78 

at ha vara 46 
Rihili 67 
sparifa 82 

iparsayiir 62 
sphajika 1 6, 60 
smni 8 1 
svapiia 31 
svabhava 15, 56, 71 
svabhavaia 71 
svarga 2 1 
hayamedha 77 
hari 72 78 

hlfl* 34 
hem 28. 67 

hcya 20 







NISABA is ■ collection of texts in English transition throwing light 
on the religions of the world and is intended especially for the use of 
students. The technical terms occurring in the texts are either left in the 
original language or. if translated, are followed by the original words 
between brackets. Each volume contains a glossary explaining such words, 
and the translators may add short introductions and brief commentaries. 

I, The Sutra on the foundation of the Buddhist Order (Catuspari- 
satsfltra). Translated by Ria KLOPPENBORG. 1973. (vi, 123 p.) 

Gld. 16.— 

II. A mystical interpretation of Prophetic tales by an Indian Muslim. 

Shah Wall Allah's TtPuft J-AbaJUb. Translated by J, M. S. 

BALJON. 1973. (fat, 67 p.) Gld. 12 — 

III. Religious texts of the oral tradition from Western New-Guinea 
(Irian Jaya). Part A. The origin and source of life. Collected and 
translated by Freerk C. KAMMA. 1975. (xii. 140 p.) Gld. 18.— 

IV. Pm wen p'ien or The Hundred Questions. A dialogue between two 
Taoists on the macrocosmie and microcosmic system of correspon- 
dences. Translated by Rolf HOMANN. 1976. (x, 109 p.) 

Gld. 28.— 

V. Jihad in mediaeval and modern Islam. The chapter on jihad from 

Averroes" legal handbook Bidayai alMuJjtabid and the treatise 

'Koran and Fighting* by the late Shayle al-Az har. MahmQd Shaltut. 

Translated and annotated by Rudolph PETERS. 1977. (viii. 90 p.) 

Gld. 24,— 
VI. The horoscope of AmduIIlh MireS. A specimen of nineteenth- 
century Persian astrology. Translated and annotated by L. P. 
ELWELL-SUTTON. 1977. (vi, 103 p., 12 |l fold.] fig., many 
tables) Gld - 24 ~ 

VII. Bantu myths and other tales. Collected and translated by Jan 
KNAPPERT, 1977. (x, 181 p, 1 drawing, 1 folding sketchmap) 

Gld. 36.— 
VIII. Religions texts of the oral tradition from Western New-Guinea 
(Irian Jaya). Part B. The threat to life and its defence against 
"natural" and "supernatural" phenomena. Collected and translated 
by Freerk C KAMMA. 1978. (xiv, 196 p.) Gld. 36.— 

DC. Ancient Egyptian magical texts. Transl. by J. F. BorghoutS. 1978. 
(xii, 125 p.) GW. 28.— 

ISBN 90 04 06173 8